1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Happiness Balance Discussion

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gazebo, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    1 is way too concrete, and has never been a goal. The happiness system has always had the same goal: limit infinite expansion by accelerating diminishing returns with regards to additional expansions. There are too many variables at play in each game to define the system by 'x number of cities.' Even vanilla wasn't so concrete. It's a straw man.

    So by default 2 is the only real option here. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at. The system should be changed? Okay. You can say that without leading prompts.

    G
     
    Enrico Swagolo likes this.
  2. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,847
    Location:
    Beijing
    The problem currently, if the goal is Stalker's goal #2, is that happiness becomes harder over time, not easier, which is due to growth. A new city has 1 unhappiness in ancient era, no big deal. Its often easier to eat having 5/5 citizens unhappy than it is to have 5/20 be unhappy in the industrial era.

    So here's an idea. What if there was a per city happiness penalty? Slows expansion, but fades into irrelevance by late game (when the current happiness system makes me unhappy).
     
  3. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    The proportional method now used largely corrects for this, as it's always a factor of yield proportion, not gross difference. Growth and unhappiness are not linear (not even sure if that's the right mathematical term for how the current system works) anymore.

    G
     
  4. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    So it looks at global median and compares how the city is percentage wise compared to median to determine unhappiness? Is that the same as now, just proportionally percentagely?
     
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    It's now a test of:

    City Yields per Citizen
    __________________ === Unhappiness Metric

    Modified Global Median


    Whereas it used to be:

    (Modified Global Median - City Yields per Citizen) = Unhappiness Metric
     
    vyyt and Enrico Swagolo like this.
  6. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I just feel like camp 1 wasn't even a camp. Who was promotion static values like that?

    G
     
  7. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,262
    Your taking away the wrong message with Option 1. Its not about concretely saying X = 20 cities always, its the notion of a fundamental limit.

    Option 1: Even if the X city limit changes per map, etc....there is an X. If you step over that X...you will have eternal unhappiness. No matter what you do, you have to get below X cities to maintain happiness. In summary: Cities cost a lot of happiness in the short term, but some happiness in the long term.

    If I said "hey guys I have 30 cities right now and I am drowning in unhappiness. I have built every building that exists, I have all of my yields developed, and I've traded to get all of my luxury goods"...what did I do wrong?

    Camp 1 would say "you probably expanded too much. You will want to use more puppets and limit your expansion in future games. The system is designed to curb a huge number of cities except on very large maps"


    Option 2: Ultimately the only limit to X is time. You can have as many cities as you want, as long as you take the time to properly groom them and build needed infrastructure. There is no city number off limits (except the fundamental space limits of a map)....if you play for 1000 turns and build 50 cities to perfection, you can have happiness. In summary: Cities cost happiness in the short term, no happiness in the long term.

    To the same scenario mentioned in Option 1, Camp 2 would say "if you really have made all developments that sounds like an area of the system we need to adjust. If you really are doing everything possible, you should be able to stay happy"

    I personally am in camp 2. I believe as long as cities have all of the key infrastructure and worker improvements...they shouldn't be a real happiness drain. The cost is time, not a permanent drop to happiness. This is why I like the public works idea so much...it always ensures Option 2 is possible. If a person "steps over the X" in city number, they can use public works as a means to increase X. Again that costs time, its certainly not free, but its an option. And having that option I think is very important
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  8. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Thanks Mr. Zebo now I understand.
    I am also a valiant proponent of the Second Camp too by the way.

    They wanted your empire to stay permanently unhappy as soon as you got more than 10-20 annexed/controlled cities, depending on post, not for it to be a static limit. Basically as soon as you annex a city over an X number, which might be 10/15/20 (or even get this number) cities, you can't do anything, your empire dies of unhappiness and that's supposedly fine. I don't understand how it's meant to be - if that's the limit I assume the happiness is tough already at this point, so how am I meant to even afford puppets with this system? Two most prominent proponents I can remember are tall players who hate playing wide and warmongering.
     
  9. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    The real issue with 1 isn't 'is the unhappiness system working,' rather it's 'is there too much free-floating happiness. Even the current system can result in cities producing very small amounts of unhappiness. What we must watch out for is a scenario in which cities become positive-happiness generators, such that you can actually net happiness on a city-by-city basis. The AI is actually really good at achieving this, and it can really inflate empire-wide happiness values. That is actually the biggest issue here from a technical standpoint.

    It's such an issue that I've considered (for the CBO) making it such that happiness created by cities exists solely to eliminate unhappiness and actually just eliminating global happiness from the game - if a City is at or above 0 unhappiness, instead of that amount carrying over directly to global happiness, have it instead simply be a growth/GAP bonus. If more than, say, 50% of a city is unhappy, that's when it could start revolting. Would you guys kill me if I did this? I'm very close to doing it.


    See above.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  10. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,821
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Limiting an infinite expansion by diminishing return is a soft cap. You will reach somewhere a point founding a new city isnt worth the effort. And simply didnt do it.
    But placing an empire modificator like in this version leads to an exponential result, limiting the possible cities to a specific number.
    Dimiishing returns are already solved by the tech/policy cost increase.
    And while you want to aim for camp 2, youve integrated a mechanic in this version which definitly works for camp 1. Werent you aware of the mathematical dimension of a nationwide median with an empire modificator?
    This difference of all this made me questioning the goal of the happiness system.
     
  11. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I really hate rhetorical questions.

    G
     
    Stalker0 and Gothic_Empire like this.
  12. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,821
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Ok, so its true you werent aware of the mathematical consequences. :p
    Might not be a bad idea. But some questions should be solved before.
    How does unhappiness in cities stops you early game from a fast expansion?
    Which influence does unhappiness have in cities? (I think it could decrease the :c5science:/:c5culture:/:c5gold: by the same percentual amount of unhappy citizen)
    How can you counter the unhappiness, if founding a new city always generate more than 50% unhappy citizen?
     
  13. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Here's the working happiness-related changelog for the upcoming version:

    Code:
    Happiness
        The global median is back, baby
        Empire Scaler
            Needs modifiers scale with the number of owned cities (6% for non-puppets, 3% for puppets)
            Empire needs modifiers can be reduced on a city-by-city basis:
                Walls, Castles, Arsenals reduce them by 5% in the City
                Military bases reduce them by 10%
                Chichen Itza reduces it by 10% globally
        Formula change - formula for calculating unhappiness from needs is now proportional, not a linear subtraction
            What this means: big discrepancies aren't punished as hard, growth management is less important, it's easier to recover via small changes in yields per pop
        Formula change - citizen unhappiness is now limited based on # citizens versus a static %
            What this means: the entire city can't be unhappy from distress or poverty, etc. - there's a proportion (20/30/40/50) for the hierarchy of needs
                What THIS means: solving a problem with one unhappiness source generally won't be a game of whack-a-mole anymore, as the needs are divided a bit more clearly
        Formula change - happiness/unhappiness growth modifiers are now localized, removed from global happiness metric
            What this means: if a city has a lot of local unhappiness (as shown in city view on left side), it will grow much more slowly. Cities will manage themselves and this will help keep them from growing out of control
            Cities that produce excess happiness will get a bigger growth bump than before, as it is more rare for this to happen
            Numbers: right now its 3% growth modifier per happy/unhappy, multiplied by 10 if the empire is very unhappy (more than -10) or 5 if the empire is unhappy (less than zero, more than -10)
        Functional change: all 'city based' happiness changes are now localized in cities
            This affects a few types of happiness:
                Happiness from buildings like Neuschwanstein (building class dependent happiness)
                'Unmodded' Happiness from buildings (things like Circus Maximus)
                Happiness from # of policies (Prora)
                Happiness from policies themselves
            Why?
                The bonuses from these buildings wasn't visible in the city screen, so it wasn't clear where they were going
                They also wouldn't have affected growth in the newest version, but now they do
                Functiona
        Pop Scaler now 200% (was 10%, changed formula slightly, so it's now 2% per 1 citizen)
        Puppet pop unhappiness scaler now 1:4 (has waffled a lot, but I've setttled on 1:4)
        Unhappiness per Specialist now 2:1 (2 specialist, 1 unhappy)
        Capital Modifier is 25% (was 15%)
        Tech base modifier is 125% (was 75%)
    
    Projects
        New repeatable project- Public Works (base cost 300, era scaler cost 100, repeat cost 100)
            Unlocks at Machinery
            Reduces needs modifiers for distress, poverty, illiteracy, boredom, and religion by 10% in the city in which it is built
    
    Serious question:
    - Do we just scrap global happiness and have it all operate on local levels? If so, that leaves three big issues: luxury happiness and 'floating' religious happiness, and golden age points.
    My solutions:
    1.) Add up the total value these sources of happiness (luxury, monopoly, religion), and divide it by the number of non-puppet cities. We then apply that number to each city individually.
    2.) Any positive happiness in each city becomes GAP and is applied to your GAP. There's no 'negative GAP' as is now.

    Thoughts?

    G
     
    vyyt likes this.
  14. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    Where do policies/effects like Progress' Equality (empire happiness based on empire population) fit into this scheme? I feel like reaching multiples of 12 citizens in an empire is sufficiently different from reaching multiples of 12 citizens in each city to warrant further consideration.

    I assume mercantile city-state happiness goes into solution 1)? For solution 1), how would you deal with fractional happiness (eg 6 cities and 8 'global' happiness)?
     
  15. Bad_At_Diplomacy

    Bad_At_Diplomacy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks, I understand that. Basically, since all my cities basically started producing an extra 100:c5culture: (within 10 turns of each other) it had little effect, perhaps a slightly deleterious one? Was there a corporation I ought to have taken instead?

    However, I noticed when I enacted the Iron Curtain policy, which provided a tiny 5:c5production: and 5:c5gold: boost in all cities it did have moderate (if short lived) effect on distress and poverty.

    To be fair, I totally understand the argument for a national vs median approach, it's silly for my civ to be judged against another (potentially unmet) civ half a world away. Anyways, smarter people than me (Gazebo, et al.) can debate and figure it out.
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Policies have already been adapted to this purpose - 'empire-wide' stuff like Equality goes to the capital. They're functionally the same, but the happiness is no longer 'wasted' (this is similar to what I did for religion last year, making all empire-wide religious yields actually pass through the holy city).

    Re fractional happiness, that's something worth considering. I'd probably modulo it and have the fraction pass to the capital. (So 6/8 -> 6/6 and 2 excess goes to capital).

    G
     
  17. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,078
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    1) That would be kinda weird, wouldn't it? The global happiness from luxuries is currently a function of average city size across the empire.

    What's the formula for luxury happiness these days? 2+(0.1*avgCitySize)? So why not adjust happiness from luxuries to just scale with population in each city directly? Local LuxuryHappiness = NumLux * (0.5 + (0.1 * Population))

    That way you aren't making an aggregate and then just redistributing it back onto those same cities with no regard for which cities are above or below that average.
     
  18. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    We could, but we'd still have to apply it to cities somehow, as there would be nowhere for the happiness to go if we scrapped national happiness. Would we apply the happiness directly based on local resources, or would every city get a buff from every luxury?

    G
     
  19. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,078
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Definitely every city gets a buff from every luxury on empire. Only getting a buff from the local ones would be strange; it would almost imply no intra-empire trade whatsoever. I'm saying each city would be No. Luxuries on empire, multiplied by some function of that city's size.

    So larger cities get more happiness from luxuries than smaller cities. If you individuated the happiness from luxuries back down to each city, then cities below your empire's average size would get more happiness, and your large cities, like your capital, would get very little benefit.
     
  20. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,262
    Bite, you have some good ideas, and I support some of those ideas. But its statements like these that makes you lose support in the community. Instead of coming across as helpful, you come across as antagonistic....for no good reason.

    If you had posted your statement minus this sentence, I would have agreed and supported your thoughts. Instead, I "denounce you", and ignore your thoughts. You need to learn to debate more kindly if you want your thoughts to be carried by others.
     

Share This Page