Local Happiness and Unnecessary Complexity

[myb7721]

The concept of local happiness is a needless addition that acts only to increases the complexity of Civ5's nomenclature. The same functional effect could have easily been achieved without the confusion introduced by subclassing happiness. Here's how: for any effect that would generate local happiness in the new system, instead have it reduce the unhappiness generated by that city. Why the devs failed to see this option is difficult for me to understand. It is a much simpler way toward the same end and it doesn't change any of the fundamental concepts of the game. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To be honest I don't really understand how it works yet. My happiness wasn't great but in the green, yet Annoying Popup Lady kept coming along to tell me that my people were livid? Not sure if that was a bug or something to do with this Local Happiness business.

 

[MadDjinn]

Local happiness = population happiness/unhappiness.

It's not overly complex. Buildings that get a happiness bump affect population only.

everything else is global. This allows 'tall' empires to compete a bit better with 'wide' empires as they will be able to hit more of the SPs required to be able to grow their cities even taller.

 

[myb7721]

Local happiness works like this: Buildings and effects related to specific cities (such as from policies) that grant happiness only add to the happiness in that city. In other words, they only combat unhappiness generated by *that* city. In contrast effects that generate global happiness adds to your happiness sum no matter what.

 

[myb7721]

You're right, it's not overly complex, but it is unnecessarily complex. There was no reason to add a new concept when it wasn't needed. Elegance should be the goal.

 

[MadDjinn]

You're right, it's not overly complex, but it is unnecessarily complex. There was no reason to add a new concept when it wasn't needed. Elegance should be the goal.

yeah, there was a need. ICS is too simple (and annoying) when everything is global happiness based (or even reducing city unhappiness).

 

[myb7721]

Reread my first post. I think you're missing my point. I agree that the effect achieved by the introduction of local happiness was needed. It's the implementation of the solution that I'm taking issue with.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The reason is the same as for the whole global happiness system - to balance tall and wide empires. Initially, it was possible to build small cities with happiness buildings producing more happiness than they spend, making tall empire no bonuses. After some patches they made it what happiness from buildings can't be more than the city population - almost the same as local happiness thing, but much more messy.

So, the actually local happiness is just more organized mechanic. Now it's much easier to calculate things.

 

[myb7721]

Perhaps, I'm not being clear. It seems to me that it would be functionally equivalent to the current system if buildings only reduced the unhappiness contributed by the city in which they were built. If this is indeed the case, then I think this is a simpler and more elegant solution as it doesn't introduce any new concepts. Having two different flavors of the same construct (happiness), introduces complexity. Complexity is fine when it it needed to achieve some end, but in this case it is not *needed*.

 

[MadDjinn]

Perhaps, I'm not being clear. It seems to me that it would be functionally equivalent to the current system if buildings only reduced the unhappiness contributed by the city in which they were built. If this is indeed the case, then I think this is a simpler and more elegant solution as it doesn't introduce any new concepts. Having two different flavors of the same construct (happiness), introduces complexity. Complexity is fine when it it needed to achieve some end, but in this case it is not *needed*.

In this case there's two points to make:

1) 'local' happiness already existed in vanilla- but it wasn't obvious about it.
2) by having a clearer statement that some happiness is 'local' and some is 'global' it allows players to understand the system better.

Your suggestion would do effectively the same thing (give or take it actually removing population based unhappiness, not city unhappiness) but be less clear.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In this case there's two points to make:

1) 'local' happiness already existed in vanilla- but it wasn't obvious about it.
2) by having a clearer statement that some happiness is 'local' and some is 'global' it allows players to understand the system better.

Your suggestion would do effectively the same thing (give or take it actually removing population based unhappiness, not city unhappiness) but be less clear.

I was going to ask that--it's just another way of explaining what what was already going on with Stadiums, et al, right?

 

[MadDjinn]

I was going to ask that--it's just another way of explaining what what was already going on with Stadiums, et al, right?

yup, but it was extended to include some policies as well that gave happiness based upon a type of building.

edit:

and a minor addition that the City Screen now (generally) shows any +X modifier on the building itself. So wall should show +1 happiness when you roll over them in the building list (right side list).

 

[Kissamies]

I think removing unhappiness would be more complex and besides, happiness has another function besides countering unhappiness: triggering the golden ages.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I think I understand how it works, but I can't really find how much unhappiness is generated by a specific city? So I want to build a building that creates local happines... Great... But, am I already maxed on what local happiness can bring? Is there something I'm missing in the UI telling me how much unhappiness is generated by the city and how much is fought back by local happiness measures? And if there is still a need for local happiness?

 

[myb7721]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think my suggestion is more clear than the current solution. It's not a matter of functional complexity but of complexity of nomenclature. More terms beget less elegance. And I understand the isomorphisms at play. It's not the function I'm criticizing, but the style.

 

[Becephalus]

I agree that a "minus unhappiness" effect is more clear than creating two classes of happiness.

 

[Bisqit]

honestly i havent even noticed local happiness. I get how it works but its hardly noticeable and its really not gonna effect how you play. Local happiness adds to your global happiness anyway. Local just means that it's specific to the city. Like i had 3 local happiness in Constantinople which is +3 globally. It's pretty simple.

 

[buchengshi]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think my suggestion is more clear than the current solution. It's not a matter of functional complexity but of complexity of nomenclature. More terms beget less elegance. And I understand the isomorphisms at play. It's not the function I'm criticizing, but the style.

Actually, I don't find your solution at all clear.

...for any effect that would generate local happiness in the new system, instead have it reduce the unhappiness generated by that city.

What exactly does that mean? You aren't being clear about what you mean.

Perhaps, I'm not being clear. It seems to me that it would be functionally equivalent to the current system if buildings only reduced the unhappiness contributed by the city in which they were built.

Yes, you are not being clear. Or have misunderstanding of how happniess works. Buildings/policies are able to generate more local happiness than the amount of unhappiness generated by a city. You want to nerf that down to only the amount of unhappiness?

 

[Securion]

I agree that a "minus unhappiness" effect is more clear than creating two classes of happiness.

It has ALWAYS been two classes of happiness.
The only difference now is that they actually tell us about it in tool-tips and so on.

EDIT; Ah nvm. Misunderstood your post. Sorry.

 

[Securion]

And MadDjinn, arent you supposed to work on a Lets Play or something... mmh?