Gothic_Empire
AKA, Ramen Empire
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,502
Why reward good settling positions even more than they are already rewarded?
Good things make people happy.
RIP Inuit
What?
Why reward good settling positions even more than they are already rewarded?
RIP Inuit
I appreciate the post, but I’ll admit, you might be the only person I’ve encountered who seemed to enjoy the tedious micro of the other happiness system.
For the record I enjoyed it too in VP always did. The new happiness system sounds really interesting........
If just one thing I could ask one thing only!
Design and balance this happiness system so that from difficulty levels king and up on standard settings a player should have to deal at least once maybe twice with the serious threat of a major internal happiness issue that could threaten a rebellion. Just one such occasion per standard game and I would be totally happy with the design.
In my opinion if the happiness cannot achieve this metric the design is not good enough. I say that from having come from a long tradition of civ4 mods that dealt with internal dynamics of empire management in great detail and they did it pretty darn well.
VP is supposed to be a total empire challenge. I sometimes worry that civ players under estimate the importance of domestic affairs in empire building. People from countries that have a long history of revolts and rebellion like France know what I mean.
Throwing this one out there. We are focused on luxuries as happiness because its always been that way.
Since we did away with economic bonuses from high happiness...what if we gave it to luxuries. For every unique luxury you have you gain +1% bonus to gold, science, culture (whatever values make sense). Or for your luxury above your city number you gain a bonus.
Just noting that we don't have to be a slave to luxury = happiness if it doesn't make sense in the new model.
How so?Seems really perverse to encourage people to avoid improving their own lux so they can buy it instead. If you want to scale by era, just scale by era as some others have suggested (though of course it would want to be a bit flatter than usual era scaling)
And subjectively we will have the satisfaction of seeing a 100% happiness in reward for our dutiful management, sometimes.
That's because where you read 'happiness', I read 'governability'Personally I find it odd to see 100% all the time. People are never 100% happy, so it feels a bit like state propoganda .
Check my comments, I never said the system isn't working (except the one with Nation median). I always said the numbers in the background aren't working. The needs and reductions were bloated more and more, making heavy swings possible. The happiness system was so dominant gameplay wise, it feeled sometimes I have to fight only half the game the AI and the other half the happiness system. You said you want now a system which stays more in the background, that was what I wanted too, but I don't know why you didn't simply reduced the blown up numbers before you completely rework the system. That wasn't necessary, you could have reached this goal with the old system too."but the version before with global median was working mostly as intended."
No. No, it wasn't - you of all people should know this, you commented on nearly every thread and post that complained about the prior system and said something along the lines of "see? the system is broken!" But hey, keep trying to play both sides.
"Happiness from luxuries is pure magic."
Or math. Either way.
Wow, you needed only 3 more posts to contradict yourself.It's not an interesting mechanic, and it makes the whole system arcane.
Tu_79 and others made the suggestion to change the influence of the global happiness always in relation to the population, instead of a strict number. Big happiness swings occurred mostly in big empires. If we had changed the global happiness influence towards a relative comparison, a swing of 10 happiness in a 100 pop empire would be the same as a 20 swing in a 200 empire, this problem would be fixed relative easily. You've made that change now, and I ask me, why not already in the previous version?!?"While we had former a smooth distribution of modifiers from -30 to +10, we have now steps with huge effect differences, and everything can change from one turn to another."
Smooth yes, but it was never engaged in a 'smooth' way - swings of 10-20 were common, which mean a swing of 20% national yields (if it happened to go from +10 to -10, which was not uncommon). And yes, the current system has 'steps,' but the buffer between them is quite wide, so it allows for more 'play' if there is a swing.
Median is still there. The modifiers for the median are still there. How luxuries give happiness is "arcane". We still have 2 systems, global happiness and local happiness. We have a strange global happiness source distribution. And the caps for happiness/unhappiness are causing trouble."But the changes are going again into the completly wrong direction into more mechanics, more complexity, less transparency."
Everything you said is untrue. The new system is less complex (all happiness/unhappiness calculations are localized), has fewer moving parts (no more median math, as buildings are integer unhappiness modifiers now), and more transparent (every modifier and function is exposed to the player).
Iam not only against. I always try to give constructive critics, and my constructive critic to the new system is, it's not better, and it only drains time and manpower in a system change, which wasn't necessary in first placeI realize you don't want to like this, and I realize that disliking things is a boost to your ego, but - once again - you are flat-out wrong. Not just subjectively wrong, but objectively wrong. I would appreciate your opinion more if it were grounded in anything other than abject obstinance and antagonism.
That's because where you read 'happiness', I read 'governability'
The real function of the happiness mechanic is allowing the player to rule over a maximum number of cities and people. Thus, the effect of puppets should be to lower the size of the empire that the player can manage.
It feels awkward to me to never ever be able to have 100% empire happiness again for just one puppet.
What?
So, are you fine with one single puppet in the empire preventing the national growth bonus of being at 100% happiness?People are never 100% compliant either though lol. Except in the Lego Movie .Spoiler :
Really though, what you are talking about is the interpretation that you have fit to the model. You see 'compliance', I see 'happiness' - but we are both looking at the same function.
Bite, I'm sorry, but that is not what contructive criticism means.I always try to give constructive critics, and my constructive critic to the new system is, it's not better, and it only drains time and manpower in a system change, which wasn't necessary in first place
Pineappledan has been thinking about making a VP version of the Inuit for quite a while.What ?
Check my comments, I never said the system isn't working (except the one with Nation median). I always said the numbers in the background aren't working. The needs and reductions were bloated more and more, making heavy swings possible. The happiness system was so dominant gameplay wise, it feeled sometimes I have to fight only half the game the AI and the other half the happiness system. You said you want now a system which stays more in the background, that was what I wanted too, but I don't know why you didn't simply reduced the blown up numbers before you completely rework the system. That wasn't necessary, you could have reached this goal with the old system too.
Wow, you needed only 3 more posts to contradict yourself.
Tu_79 and others made the suggestion to change the influence of the global happiness always in relation to the population, instead of a strict number. Big happiness swings occurred mostly in big empires. If we had changed the global happiness influence towards a relative comparison, a swing of 10 happiness in a 100 pop empire would be the same as a 20 swing in a 200 empire, this problem would be fixed relative easily. You've made that change now, and I ask me, why not already in the previous version?!?
Median is still there. The modifiers for the median are still there. How luxuries give happiness is "arcane". We still have 2 systems, global happiness and local happiness. We have a strange global happiness source distribution. And the caps for happiness/unhappiness are causing trouble.
Iam not only against. I always try to give constructive critics, and my constructive critic to the new system is, it's not better, and it only drains time and manpower in a system change, which wasn't necessary in first place
Throwing this one out there. We are focused on luxuries as happiness because its always been that way.
Since we did away with economic bonuses from high happiness...what if we gave it to luxuries. For every unique luxury you have you gain +1% bonus to gold, science, culture (whatever values make sense). Or for your luxury above your city number you gain a bonus.
Just noting that we don't have to be a slave to luxury = happiness if it doesn't make sense in the new model.
Throwing this one out there. We are focused on luxuries as happiness because its always been that way.
Since we did away with economic bonuses from high happiness...what if we gave it to luxuries. For every unique luxury you have you gain +1% bonus to gold, science, culture (whatever values make sense). Or for your luxury above your city number you gain a bonus.
Just noting that we don't have to be a slave to luxury = happiness if it doesn't make sense in the new model.