New Beta Version - June 14th (6/14)

[BiteInTheMark]

Is that how the median works in this case?
In my game I have 3 nations with only 30 tech and 3 with 35/36. If I take the median, it would be 35, cause one of the higher nations have 36 so it should be the higher value. But if 2 of the 30er techs get 1 additional tech, it should be 31 then. Is that the reason why my modifiers change by values around +30-50%?

 

[Jakethedane]

I think a lot of the issues people are having here is continuing to try and play a certain way after developing a pattern, and finding out it doesn’t work.
Everytime a new patch regarding a system change happens I always take it turn by turn to make sure I know what the mistake I made was. It’s harder when you get around the 200+ turn to determine where things went wrong, but not impossible.
But I’m always playing against human players so... we tend to converse and talk about what we think went wrong and where.

 

[remouto]

The happiness change is so wonky I had to make an account just to complain.

Played a game as China yesterday, despite stalling my techs to keep my bonuses the entire game and even delaying them by switching to different ones with 1 turn left, I found myself as the tech leader.

This resulted in Happiness shifting from +3 to -35 to -5 to -28 back and forth each turn until I simply gave up because it was impossible to salvage.

It seems like if you somehow find yourself as the tech leader unless you're massively ahead in Score it'll totally cripple you the entire game.

Some might say this was the intended effect to punish runaway civs, but the way it's implemented makes it totally unpredictable when you'll randomly get hit by a -50 happiness penalty and have to give up on your save, and even if you try to salvage it the fact it'll just keep jumping back and forth with massive swings seems buggy/unplayable.

In fact it probably punishes slight leads in tech/culture more than it punishes civs that are leading in every factor, and it punishes turtling your tech tree a lot more than beelining expensive techs, which seems strange since having lots of weak techs doesnt give you as much of an advantage as abusing great library/ethiopia to rush ahead to Chivalry or something.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think a lot of the issues people are having here is continuing to try and play a certain way after developing a pattern, and finding out it doesn’t work.
Everytime a new patch regarding a system change happens I always take it turn by turn to make sure I know what the mistake I made was. It’s harder when you get around the 200+ turn to determine where things went wrong, but not impossible.
But I’m always playing against human players so... we tend to converse and talk about what we think went wrong and where.

But not everybody wants to play the game in the same way this change is directing. Penalizing tech and population advantage is the complete opposite of every other 4X game I have played. I understand the purpose, but theres a complete difference in giving people behind an advantage (trade routes, tech discount,...) and punish every more advantage in tech by losing 15 happiness.

 

[pineappledan]

The way I understood this tech change, it was to alleviate unhappiness on tech followers who have less access to the infrastructure that tech leaders have. Instead, the happiness mechanic appears to be primarily a rubber-banding mechanic, hammering a tech leader back down

 

[pernas]

Why does tech need to be penalized so much anyway?

I find that in vox populi production and culture are more important yields and more indicative of a runaway civ.

 

[remouto]

I usually play on Prince/King because I admit I'm not very good and would rather play relaxing games.

The fact the AI doesnt speedrun through the tech tree on these difficulties punishes human players massively for doing so.

Seems really weird to punish players for a playstyle that doesn't lend itself to winning anyway. If you play on Deity you'll hardly be affected by this change since the AI is likely going to be ahead of you in raw techs and your goal is more focused towards beelining strong techs.

I think this change would have been better implemented as a bonus to civs at the bottom than a penalty to civs at the top of the tech tree. An actual parachute mechanic to save civs who fall behind through a bonus to espionage speed based on the tech difference between them and the target would be neat.

 

[Gazebo]

I'll be honest, the unhappiness is not good. I don't even understand the point of it all. To nerf runaways, sure, but why? It's not Mario Kart where you play on a track for 2-3 minutes, it can be hours of playing that ensure you get to the top. If your decisions led you there, why should the game punish you for being better? There's already tons of systems or things mostly focused on nerfing runaways and/or warmongerers, like war weariness, puppet unhappiness, AI hate, wonder cost increase for each owned of up to two eras back, science/culture cost increase for each owned city, up to 25% CS bonus against warmongerers, tourism penalty for each owned city, huge upgrade costs for units, increased maintenance per unit based on the number of owned units, population-based unhappiness, Blue Shells, low luxury happiness and now tech-happiness connection is more annoying than ever.

The problem is it's all pursuing "balance" via AI simulated games. It is definitely a ton of work that is very astonishing and praiseworthy, but I still fail to see the point. I'll be honest here, the games very long time ago when I ran away and found another continent in renaissance only to realise it's either containing a guy with all the wonders or a guy who ate everyone else while having wonders were most fun. I had to work against him. For many versions, even if I see I'm the strongest on my continent, I fail to see a champion emerge on the other one which sucks. I don't care for balance of the strong or removing runaways anymore, in fact I'd prefer if balling was easy for both you and AI because that makes for good games. If everyone is at the same level or punished when they get stronger, there's no satisfaction. I want at least one strong opponent to emerge so there's a point in playing.


The current system's flaw is not only that it's restrictive but the worst issue is that it's just not fun. If you're in the middle, you can't get unhappy, but why should being average be encouraged in a 4X game? I don't like the idea of having more Science being such a hugely bad thing when population already does that. The new system doesn't make you want to be strong and prosper, it wants you to be mediocre and it punishes you for any display of superiority. You don't get hurt by having more Social Policies, or Gold, or Spies, Production, Faith, etc.

Since this is essentially everyone’s reply, I reply to this: I released this as a beta a.) I was tired of getting requests for a new release and b.) I wanted to get the human ‘mouthfeel’ for the tech modifier. I was aware of the swings, but thought it worthwhile enough to share this version. Thanks for testing, and yes - as always - have faith.

Anyways, there’s a bug, mea culpa. In the CityHappiness.sql file the tech modifier should be 0.1 not 1.0. My debugging versions were at a .125 and It was a bit more than I wanted, but in my haste to release I put the decimal in the wrong spot. So change that (it’s savegame compatible) and the tech curve will match my projections. I wanted tech to be less important overall for the game, not more important, but it turns out that missing a decimal place on a cubed equation can make a big difference in intentions.

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Since this is essentially everyone’s reply, I reply to this: I released this as a beta a.) I was tired of getting requests for a new release and b.) I wanted to get the human ‘mouthfeel’ for the tech modifier. I was aware of the swings, but thought it worthwhile enough to share this version. Thanks for testing, and yes - as always - have faith.

Anyways, there’s a bug, mea culpa. In the CityHappiness.sql file the tech modifier should be 0.1 not 1.0. My debugging versions were at a .125 and It was a bit more than I wanted, but in my haste to release I put the decimal in the wrong spot. So change that (it’s savegame compatible) and the tech curve will match my projections. I wanted tech to be less important overall for the game, not more important, but it turns out that missing a decimal place on a cubed equation can make a big difference in intentions.

G

My faith per turn is high, I always found if I want to so don't worry.
Anyway SELECT 'BALANCE_HAPPINESS_TECH_BASE_MODIFIER', '0.1', yes?

For lazy lazies here is the file, then. Unpack it in Modular Elements/Happeniss Mod.

 

[Gazebo]

My faith per turn is high, I always found if I want to so don't worry.
Anyway SELECT 'BALANCE_HAPPINESS_TECH_BASE_MODIFIER', '0.1', yes?

For lazy lazies here is the file, then. Unpack it in Modular Elements/Happeniss Mod.

Yup that’s the one.

 

[tu_79]

@Enrico Swagolo
You nearly said everything.what is to say.
The game feels more and more restrictive, more and more forced to be played in a precise way. More rubberbanding than ever and in most parts you done best, if you play average. But this isnt the sense of a 4X game.


I have the same problem as he have, and I cant imagine the amount of happiness drops, if you have a bigger empire (10+ cities).
And sorry for this statement, but this is bullfeathers. The game went from "do what you want, create an empire that stands the test of game" to "do whatever you want, but always control your happiness, dont grow too fast, dont research too fast, dont conquer too much, always build need buildigns first (.....) or your civilization will fall apart"..... Gazebo changed the algorithm to compete with the happiness issues in last patch. I would have handled the issue different, but wasnt able to explain exactly, which problem I see. Ok, we try now the new system. Fine.
But your answer to his issue, which is exactly I have too, is only "you have done wrong". With this answer I have definitly a problem, cause in my opinion its ignorant. Instead of responding to his fear this system (or numbers of it) is broken, you only pray the same crap like last patches. Cut your grow and research less. There are already a lot of rubberbanding mechanics in this game and you demand from the people to do something absolutly counterintuive (I dont know any other 4x game, where growing and researching is doing something wrong.). No new player will understand or accept this system.

If you think, the happiness system have to be hard, cause the game feels to easy for you.... go a difficulty level upwards, but this is no explaination, why the happiness system should have the same complexity than the rest of the game.

Now that was pretty offensive. If you think my answer was uneducated, there are other ways to say so.

You might not appreciate it, but I'm sharing a strategy that worked for me so far. At least in the happiness as it is in the release before. I haven't had a chance to test current beta, but I wasn't answering about specifics of the current beta.

I realize how patient actually Gazebo is.

 

[pineappledan]

Whether it was well-said or not is one thing. I agree with @BiteInTheMark on two things, however:

1. The happiness mechanic has become all-consuming, to the point where managing and monitoring factors leading to unhappiness is the main concern in most playthroughs.

2. The way that happiness is being determined seems to be getting more and more complex. There is an accretion of game mechanics, adding rubber-banding here, adding cities that follow a separate set of rules there, a change in rules to how luxuries work over there. The system has become so complex, that players can't even enunciate what the problem is anymore. It's too labyrinthine to effectively describe.

 

[Jakethedane]

I don’t think necessarily because something worked before it was a good technique. As most games you are looking for a human edge- and more often than not that means using some part of the games weakness to your advantage. I personally love it when my pattern is destroyed and I have to do some thinking and city managing. It’s never been a big enough part of the game imo.
I’m thinking that these changes are also pretty dependent on map type too- as certain ones are definitely loaded with luxuries compared to others.

To find a good balanced distribution of everything is more important imo.

 

[LittleFellow]

[French guy. English is not my native langage. Sorry if what I said sounds weird sometimes]

Hi,
I'm more of a lurker usually but I want to share a feedback of my last game with this new beta because I didn't run into hapiness issues at all (and it's a while)
The last version I played was the April 30th. I used to play on Emperor (I don't win a lot but) but I prefered to moving down (5 ─ King) this time in order to better understand these big changes.

Pangea ─ Standard Speed/Standart Map (8 AI + 1 added) as Portugal :
I picked Tradition --> Statecraft -> Rationalism -> Order.

I was the tech leader from ~ turn 150 to the end. I Rushed Petra and the Colossus for the extra trade routes. It was an easy game I must say. I was surounded by 3 warmongerers (Shongay, Aztec, Assyria) so I quickly crushed my closest neighbour Assyria, took his capital and raze his 2nd city to resettle my fifth and last city instead.

It's funny that even with a bug I never have a single unhappiness. Shongay and Aztec was declaring war on me all the time but I just defend myself until a peace treaty to avoid warmonger diplomatic penalties.

Something strange is that my 3 most relevant opponents have fallen into endless unhappiness (- 153 for Ottoman !!? )

Somes stats :

Spoiler My Happiness :

Spoiler Happiness fluctuation of the others :

Spoiler Tech count :

NB : I really appreciated theses new changes (ranged unit, luxuries scaler) and I think this new system with the median is worth a try. Bugless and with some tweaks it can be really good !

PS : As it's my first post I obviously gonna thanks all the contributors of this incredible project. You guys are amazing. Special thanks to @Gazebo, @ilteroi and @Infixo the big coders. A big thanks to @Moi Magnus, @ElliotS, @tu_79, @pineappledan, @Enrico Swagolo, @randomnub, @Owlbebach and @CrazyG for being so active and useful to community.

I loved read Immortal/Deity PhotoJournal some of you posted. I know it very very time eater but oh god it's so instructive !
Don't hesitate to write out some from time to time.

PS 2 : Although I do not wish to be unkind to you, @BiteInTheMark I must say, as an observer trying to remain objective, that you're kind of creating a bad atmosphere on the forum. You're right to be critic but I find you excessively aggressive. Be nicer and calmer and I'm sure you will be much more listened.
Do not take it amiss. It just a critic... about you this time

 

[inzlinger]

I changed the "1" to "0.1" and all is fine. I was building the Pisa Tower and have choosen the GS to geht the scienceboost. Before I have gotten a hit of -21 happiness and after I have changed it was only -1. I was Techleader already.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Now that was pretty offensive. If you think my answer was uneducated, there are other ways to say so.

You might not appreciate it, but I'm sharing a strategy that worked for me so far. At least in the happiness as it is in the release before. I haven't had a chance to test current beta, but I wasn't answering about specifics of the current beta.

I realize how patient actually Gazebo is.

Iam sorry for my offensive way. Ive heard that advice too often and its still silly in my opinion, cause it goes in the complete opposite direction than any other strategy game. Iam a bit bored of being beaten by the happiness system (for some patches now) and not by other civs. It atleast feels the game has to be played in a special way more an more, with a lot more chances to do mistakes, and less freedom in choices. This is different in games like EU4, HOI4, addons of those games give more ways how to deal with different situations. This may be a result cause of the long development of the mod, the players which play the game now a long time are the most active in the forum, give advices how it can be more competitive and more balanced. But this is the view of a professional players, which can adopt easy cause they know all the rules and the changes in rules. But from a view of a beginner, a lot of the changes make no sense which may result in the abandonment of the mod.
@LittleFellow
I always try to say clearly what I think and why I think this. I simply had the feeling I have to defend Kalesh-kun, cause he was told, hes doing poorly, while he have done nothing wrong. In the end I was right, it was a algorithm error.
But creating a bad atmosphere isnt my intention. I simply often cant understand why some changes were made, while other solutions would be easier or atleast more understandable.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

0.1 version does appear to be okay to me. I'm Ethiopia, got my big spike from finishing a policy tree + enhancing religion + great library at almost the same time and my happiness is positive anyway.

 

[Iamblichos]

Guys,
Once you get the value set right to 0.1 which wasn’t a design error but a typo, the game will play as normal and will be the standard fair of Civilization you know.

 

[Gazebo]

Guys,
Once you get the value set right to 0.1 which wasn’t a design error but a typo, the game will play as normal and will be the standard fair of Civilization you know.

But I’ve invested so much money in pitchforks to sell for a profit! I’m ruined!

G

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

But I’ve invested so much money in pitchforks to sell for a profit! I’m ruined!

G

Now that is a true American entrepreneur who has read and applied The Art of the Deal to his life.