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

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    No, you haven't outlined anything, you've thrown 1000 ideas at the wall, I'm not going to sort through the ones that stuck or didn't stick.

    G
     
  2. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,151
    Very well I will summarize my notes from the previous posts:

    1) Currently Wide is too penalized in terms of happiness towards industrial area on. It is quite possible to get a to point where all of your cities are at "max unhappiness" (aka unhappy = pop) even having built all unhappiness reductors. Likely there needs to be an adjustment in terms of expansion modifier.

    2) Tall is not penalized enough. It quite easy to play tall with 100% Global Happiness the entire game. Recommend an increase in population unhappiness or perhaps an adjustment to Tradition/Artistry to compensate.

    3) Landmarks provide an incredible amount of happiness, more so than anything else in the game. Further, they are not consistent, the amount of landmarks you can get varies wildly game to game. I recommend to remove happiness bonuses from landmarks, and balance the system accordingly. Frankly, landmarks are just fine without the happiness.

    4) Public Works is not strong enough. The needs reduction is barely felt, even building 2-3 of them. Recommend adjusting this to a flat unhappiness redactor, or possibly allowing this as the one thing that provides happiness and is repeatable (since you have total control over it).

    --Just throwing out my recent idea, use the settler model to allow food to count as hammers for the project. It represents the "bread" in bread/circus or the modern "soup kitchen". Allowing food heavy cities a relief valve without having to stop growth, and gives you something else to do with your food late game.

    5) (Personal Opinion) Urbanization is a bad mechanic. It creates a level of "whack-a-mole", causes your happiness to go up and down up and down, and forces a lot of micromanagement of specialists, which is not strategic and not enjoyable. Urbanization redactors actually make this worth, because sometimes you don't know how many specialists to adjust, or in cities, to get the right effect. You wind up just killing specialists until you finally lose 1 unhappiness, which is quite annoying. If specialists are overpowered, increase food costs and/or reduce benefits to adjust.
     
    crdvis16 and BiteInTheMark like this.
  3. CrazyG

    CrazyG Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,256
    Location:
    Beijing
    I use artistry when going wide (its my most common choice to follow progress).

    Does this need to happen? I just don't see how happiness can be relevant for a tall empire (which really means a 4-5 city empire, because other than your capital, tradition cities don't grow more than other ones do). I don't know what change would make a tradition empire have to manage happiness that wouldn't make every other empire have to deal with it on a larger scale. Is it a problem if tiny empires are easily happy?
     
    crdvis16 and BiteInTheMark like this.
  4. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,151
    I don't think Tall needs to be "super penalized" for happiness. I also agree that its simply one of their strengths. That said, its 100% irrelevant at the moment to me, so some adjustment I think makes sense
     
  5. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that tall shouldn't have happiness problems - it should be one of the strengths.

    Overall, I think the empire needs modifiers are high. It's also annoying that puppets increase the empire needs modifiers. I'd recommend a numbers adjustment there.

    I'm also opposed to changing landmarks. I'm the one that raised it as an issue but they are what enables a fun late game.
     
  6. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,525
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I agree with you.
    But here is an experimental thought: What if the empire modificator is reversed? Something like: Founding your first city set the empire modificator to 60%, and each additional city decrease it by (multiplicativly) 10%, so you will have after founding next cities 54% / 48,6% / 43,8% / 39,4% / 35,4% and only 8.1% with 20 cities. A higher empire modificator for small empires would eat the advantage of easy, flat happiness sources, and would help wider empires, but not to a huge degree. The main source of modifier rise would be still population and techs. Dont hit me on the numbers, there are only for example, and its simply an experimental thought.

    So, you think its better to stay with a new, artificial happiness source, which can outperform any other happiness source in the game easily, instead of bringing the unhappiness closer to the happiness, by modifier reduction?
     
  7. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    I think I want to stop worrying about happiness late game. There hasn't been a version yet where I could go wide, conquer, and enjoy the late game and happiness until I figured out landmarks as a remedy.
     
  8. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,525
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    You know, happiness is there to limit too much/fast expansion, especially by conquest? The poll indicates, that it's seen as the biggest duty for the happiness system. I think you are not FOR happiness by landmarks but simply against unhappiness in late game and everything what achieves this is right. Or?
     
  9. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    I think I generally agree with these. #5 and #2 are sort of at odds since urbanization is the mechanic for tall unhappiness for the most part. I might be one of the people who thinks small/tall being inherently happy is ok, though, so for me fixing #5 is probably more important than #2.
     
  10. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Happiness easier for tall should not be completely avoidable. Otherwise, what incentives does tall have for pursuing luxuries?
     
  11. amateurgamer88

    amateurgamer88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    Messages:
    858
    Gender:
    Male
    Just speaking from my own experience, I feel like Tall requires little effort to stay happy while Wide requires a lot of it (especially managing all those specialist slots in all your cities). Personally, I don't mind if Tall requires a bit more effort to stay happy. Make it so that Tall players need to make some tough decisions that will decide how their happiness will look in the late game. In my games, I noticed that Tall AI civs can stay at 100% very easily while civs that went wide struggle more.

    Personally, I feel like we're heading in a direction where going Tall is becoming easier while going Wide is being penalized more and more over time. I don't know if it's intended but that's what I'm observing with the last few patches. The happiness system also seems to lean greatly in that direction.
     
  12. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    1. Already done.
    2. Shifting urbanization to be an 'end' value (instead of beginning) will help with this somewhat. I'm also going to make it such that you cannot run a specialist if it would put your city in negative unhappiness (i.e. if you are at 11 happy / 13 unhappy, you will have a cap of two specialists, up to 13/13).
    3. Already fixed, the bonus will be 'empire-wide' instead of per city.
    4. Already fixed, I'm also going to add +1 flat happy to the building.
    -- Not viable, there's no pipeline in the DLL for this
    5. I disagree, see 2.

    G
     
    tu_79 and vyyt like this.
  13. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,525
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Iam not completely understanding how urbanization as last unhappiness will help in unhappiness fighting, can you pls explain?
    Why blocking specialists if the city is unhappy? Isnt it my decision if I want to use specialists in my city and get the penalty?
    This disables the option for small island cities to get more hammer by engineers and with it, get out of the unhappiness by lacking infrastructure.
     
  14. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    The point with island cities is pretty valid, I think the buildings that remover specialist unhappiness should also allow you to work one freely regardless of happiness.
     
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Because right now a city at max happy/unhappy (i.e. 13/13) can just say 'screw it' and work all specialists, because it replaces all other penalties. The player is rewarded for not having a surplus of happiness, which is odd. Flipping it means that urbanization unhappiness is tacked onto whatever else is already present in the city, and having it cap at the neutral line means that a happiness surplus is needed for specialists. It's a lot more natural.
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Precisely- since those specialists don't affect unhappiness, you'd still be able to work them. That's the point of the change.

    G
     
    vyyt and Enrico Swagolo like this.
  17. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    Fixed by adding happiness, or fixed by modifying the needs reduction and also adding happiness?
     
  18. tothePAIN

    tothePAIN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Gender:
    Male
    My response is somewhat moot given Gazebo's plan to change landmark happiness to empire wide instead of per city and to have public works be a source of +1 happiness but:

    1. Yes, I understand happiness is meant to limit too much / fast expansion. It does so effectively under the current system. Landmarks aren't available until archaeology. The game is usually won or lost by this point. My expansion has already been limited by happiness.

    2. Late game, happiness isn't supposed to be as constricting for expansion. If we've moved to a per-city happiness model, the question should be whether each city can be happy on its own. Expansion shouldn't be artificially limited by the happiness system if infrastructure is properly built, etc.

    3. A reduced empire modifier should alleviate this. Wide gains some benefits to happiness from going wide - more luxuries, some monopoly % bonuses - but they don't scale as much as an empire does.

    Late game, enemy AIs often have 12 cities. I want to be able to have a few more than that to be able to win world congress project competitions.
     
  19. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,363
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    and = yes

    G
     
  20. Omen of Peace

    Omen of Peace Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2018
    Messages:
    254
    Gender:
    Male
    At this point, we just have to wait for the next version to see the impact of the changes!
    Gazebo, how much will be the empire-wide landmark happiness bonus: +1, +2, ...?

    I have to say, I'm sympathetic to the idea that happiness should be less important in the late game, since there presumably isn't any room left to expand. So going wider at this point means warmongering... but warmongers will have been curtailed somewhat by happiness earlier, so it could be tamped down in the last two eras.
     

Share This Page