Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Mar 14, 2019.
Good things make people happy.
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.
Well the good news is that the new system doesn't 'do away' with the things you all enjoyed about the old system. It streamlines some things, but really it's just an evolution of the city-centric design I've been peddling since the beginning.
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.
Hmm this would be a good way to allow luxuries to scale AND is more fun than happiness.
If you don't connect luxuries, you don't have them for selling. Also, if you don't have anyone to trade with, or your trade partner goes to war with you, you'll miss it anyway.
And we have the local bonus and extra yields. A mine on silver grants culture to the tile and 1 local happiness to the city. Would you miss that for the extra 2 happiness at the empire level? I would not. I would trade as usual.
You could say the same thing for Netherlands, where trading the last copy of a resource gives extra yields. Do you purposely not connect resources for Netherlands?
Here's another suggestion.
Can we move unhappiness from puppets to empire's level?
Right now, unhappy people from puppets are accounted for the empire happiness, making it impossible to have 100% happy citizens once we have a puppet.
People living in puppet countries are not usually considered citizens of the empire, so they should not directly account.
By moving their complaints to the empire level, unhappiness from puppets would behave like war weariness, draining efforts from the state in detriment of the rightfully cities of the empire.
And subjectively we will have the satisfaction of seeing a 100% happiness in reward for our dutiful management, sometimes.
Personally I find it odd to see 100% all the time. People are never 100% happy, so it feels a bit like state propoganda .
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.
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
People are never 100% compliant either though lol. Except in the Lego Movie .
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.
The Inuit are a mod civ with (I assume) a snow start bias.
They are one of the notable civs in a 42-AI Civ Battle Royale. At least, that's where I know them from.
So, are you fine with one single puppet in the empire preventing the national growth bonus of being at 100% happiness?
We could lower the value at which the bonus is given, or we could move the unhappiness from puppets to the player level. It would still be there, making your life harder, but at least it would be possible to feel rewarded for good management.
I'm already a bit troubled by not knowing how good my happiness buffer is, before going to war. If there are better ways, I'm all ears.
Edit. It IS possible to be 100% happy for pacific civs that don't take puppets, or aggressive civs that annex every city. Why should it be different for civs with puppets?
Hold up! I think there is a big miscommunication here.
Have you been playing the beta? There is no penalty for being below 100%. You need to be below 75% before anything bad happens on an empire level.
Bite, I'm sorry, but that is not what contructive criticism means.
Even if you are correct, you are relentlessly negative - it's very tiring to read.
I'm a fan of micromanagement so (manual assignation of every tile, moving units one cell at a time, reading notifications, viewing new city state quests daily, manually pressing workers every turn, etc), i liked the old system, but i don't have problems with the new one, i only get problems when i hit 50% happiness in early game because i was unable to find a single natural wonder
Pineappledan has been thinking about making a VP version of the Inuit for quite a while.
This civ would have a strong toundra/snow bias, so giving a hapiness malus for settling on these would be devastating for them.
In any cases, I think the yields toundra and snow tiles bring are low enough in the early game : there is no need for further punishment.
Saying that the luxury function is math, and that I’m not happy with how the math translates into the UI for players, is not a contradiction.
Besides, you only need one post to contradict yourself. Your entire post above is self-contradictory.
Acctually, it's a solution in this direction that would make them very interesting and fun again, making you want to indulge in trade, snatching them with citadels, expand & build more cities, go to war seeing that juicy land of your neighbour etc.! Adapting this system would give you about the same effect as in the old system:
In old system the value was 2%/luxury for every yeild (except production)
+2 happiness = +2%
But then your happiness would cap at 10% and could even go into the negative, so using 2% without a cap in this system would maybe make them too powerful & unbalanced. Therefore I think 1% sounds pretty decent and would be worth a try to begin with. In the old system I always felt resources to be a little "dull" due to the fact that they were to serve as "happiness", even though they also affected the economy. Now, done in a way along your thinking or similar to it, would make them more obvious as being a part of one's economy and wealth. The psychological effect would probably be to see them as even more valuable and precious - even though they wouldn't be so.
What you suggest I have never dared to suggest, but I have been thinking about this for years, that resources ought to be more fun and interesting, thus to be a cause for expansion, trade, war, and what not - like in the real world. I'm really glad you brought it up.
I like the idea of luxuries giving % bonuses to yields.
Congrats, you’ve researched the monopoly system!
Separate names with a comma.