Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Mar 14, 2019.
Yeah, I would like to see luxuries tried at 1 flat happiness + 1% SCFG.
No, what he's saying is we can have a% bonus for each unique luxury (just one copy), monopoly is when you have the majority of a certain luxury.
Instead of assigning happiness directly to luxuries, the % bonus each unique copy gives should be enough to fight happiness.
I have. But I've read so many proposals ultimately that I'm not sure anymore of anything. I'd swear I've read that there's a bonus for staying at 100% happiness.
Anyways, I still don't think that having puppets should penalized with direct unhappy people. It's not coherent (see my post above). It encourages annexing.
I posted 4 points for a fix to the happiness system. Gazebo tried them all.
The self-regulation is working (growth penalties locally).
The player agency, should be better than before (public works, better UI)
The dynamic reference is back to the world's median, where the player cannot manipulate.
He even tried with the proportional system, but he wasn't satisfied with the results. Maybe (maybe) having the local unhappy people limited to the square root of the city size would have given the right result, but he thought that that was too obscure to even try to explain (scary square roots!!). Well, it's hard to fix problems when you don't play and see what the problems are. If we were competent coders, we could have offered our help, designed the proportional happiness system, looked for something that works, and coded it, but since we are mere testers we have to accept what is freely given to us.
Also, I already commented that we can have a completely flexible and adaptable system or a simple one, but not both. It looks that more people prefer an easy to understand model, even if it is not working the same in different setups. So be it.
Monopoly system does nothing to encourage trade or expansion for unique resources.
How has the flat 2 happiness from luxuries been during ancient era expansion? I assume settled cities are at the happiness cap till at least 4 pop. 4-5 unique luxuries in a 5-City-Empire means 2 happiness per city. Add 1 from handicap and 1 from local luxuries and we are at the cap already.
Stalkers idea lets luxuries scale into the late game while letting us put them at 1 happiness early game, and is more fun than the scaling happiness by era.
The happiness system is way more transparent and I like how buildings add to flat happiness, instead of obscure percentages. It feels better and plays more intuitive, choosing the next building is easier and has more impact on growth.
Like others have been reporting early free population can be devastating. I had one game with four pop city that spawned two rebel events . The barb safety timing hadn't ended so they sort of wander off, which was nice.
My biggest gripe is how luxury trading has been neutered; severely impacting the economy to a point where everything feels sluggish and rather boring. Army upkeep is costly, even with strong starts. I mostly break even or sit in the 10-20 gpt range. VP becomes a waiting game without the flexibility that a decent income added in previous versions. How will I fan the flame of imperial conquest without to pay my troops? Pay for diplo units? Forget it! Rush wonders or buildings in low cities? Nah, please wait 20 turns. Quick buy units for a desperate defense in that one city at the edge of the empire that holds valuable resources/space, but you forgot to build wall? Yeah, you didn't want that city anyway. I don't even want to imagine playing with tradition, which already lacks in satellites.
That said, something in this version is scratching my itch because all of the sudden I want to play VP all the time.
Is it just me or did the AI get significantly less agressive in this patch?
There's been a lot fewer AI vs AI wars and despite me bulldozing there's been some wars against me but no huge anger.
I think most of the players enjoy the new system cause its less harsh than the previous versions, if you didnt have to work half the time against the happiness system, of course, this is more enjoyable.
But this doesnt make the system necessarily better/more balanced. It makes it less restrictive and the game overall easier.
Iam pretty sure it was you which suggested a relativ comparison of unhappiness to the total population and from it, a relative result of +/- modifiers to the empire. (bigger empires need more unhappiness/happiness to generate the same modifier than smaller empires). An easy solution for big happiness swings. But it wasnt done for the old system. And I dunno why the suggestion was ignored. Public works is again a fight against symptoms instead a repair of the problem. It only drains additional ressources from the player. And I see it problematic to balance for AI and human at same time. AI cant produce public works faster than human, but we all know, the AI is able to construct everything else faster and may spend the saved time to do several rounds of public works, making the happiness system trivial for the AI. Such discrepancy cant be seen in AI only games, cause theres no difference between the AIs.
I simply want to rise the awareness, that every additional mechanic (like public works, +% from luxuries, buffer till you settle your second city) is able to cause more trouble by more complexity. And less transparency.
No. G was trying to implement it along with other changes. But he didn't try to implement just this.
It was not ignored. G was working on it for a couple of days, you must have been there. The first issue he noticed is that a raw proportion would give 100% unhappiness in a new city rather easily, so he tried a few things to restrict how much unhappiness those cities might endure. A hard limit, a percentage limit, then cumulated percentages of different values.
When I suggested to limit the max unhappy people to the square root of the city size, he might have thought that this was going out of control, too hard to explain, and decided to go local instead, since some work was already started giving local penalties for local unhappiness.
This is something @Stalker0 stated long ago. A very easy happiness makes a rather enjoyable game, but makes fighting against unhappiness irrelevant too, with many happiness buildings and luxury trade just being ignored. When we try to make happiness relevant, it becomes a chore, and people complaint about spending more time fighting domestic unhappiness than playing the game. The middle ground is hard to find, since it comes to every player tastes.
No, you were suggesting a global comparison version, like its now. Somewhere between a half year and a year ago. The discussion lead to the Small UI change in the top bar which showed the unhappy people/total people comparison. I was pretty much irritated about the change, cause it was only cosmetic and never helpful in any way. But the way how the global happiness influences your yields and combat ability + the point when rebels spawn, was never touched.
In the previous version, newly settled cities were always a drain of happiness, I didnt saw an issue with it, cause it was limiting the ability to expand. On of the jobs the happiness system have to do, and it was doing it greatly.
Yes I know, Gazebo is a Ph.D. of history, but the way he tries to solve mathematical/technical problems doesnt look optimal to me. Collecting Data from literature for a work is something different than trying to fix a machine.
The happiness system lacks (in my opinion) the definition, what it wants to be. You cant solve a problem in a system if you didnt know exactly, when its working properly.
Personally, I would use the community to define the goals of the happiness system and after we have set the goals, I would ask the community to send me real savegames with normal cases and edge cases. And then try to adjust the background numbers to fit the goals in those savegames. This would be the way I would work. The rest would be flavor of Gazebo.
How would you try to find the best system and numbers?
Well, for the record... I rather do enjoy the new happiness system precisely so I get to spend effort to other parts of the game.
Do I wish the system to be slightly more punishing(individual cities getting unhappy a bit easier)? Quite possibly.
Do I want back to the 'spend the entire Renaissance in negative happiness with no way out'? Yeeaah no.
But, I'm not that good a number cruncher, and I'm definitely not an expert player (regularly getting my ass handed to me on King), so I can't really offer much in terms of finding the perfect middle ground.
Oh, yes. I remember.
That was motivated by the huge numbers we got from the excess happiness when playing tall, and the huge drop into unhappiness when going warmonger, that only got bigger and bigger every time our population grew. Now we have it. Global happiness is expressed in percentage. The early game has the same figures than the late game, 80-90% providing you are doing well.
The only remaining raising effect is the golden age points overflow from excedent happiness.
How is it feeling, by the way? I overall like this better, just missing a reference on how much happiness buffer I may have.
Insulting my academic credentials? That’s what this has come to? You don’t know me, don’t presume to know what training I have or what experience I have.
You always find new lows to base your bad faith arguments on.
Seriously, I wish you were a productive part of this community, because you seem to like something around here, but your input fails to elicit any kind of positive response, ever.
Man, I don't know what problems you two have with each other but I read about fighting almost every single page.
@BiteInTheMark If he never listens to you - just let it go dude, play the older version.
I didnt said anything about your skill in your subject area. I see the problems from a point of view of an engineer while you have experience from a philosophical education. Different point of views and different skills.
And its simply my opinion, we should use more a engineering like, data from the community driven way to solve a mathematical/technical problem.
But ok, I can only make suggestions.
If the game goes towards more flat numbers, more direct distribution, do you consider to take away the median system ? That would be the final step to make the system transparent and direct.
G, just let him say his opinion, suggestions and criticism besides you can just ignore and not obliged to reply and explain.
BITM, while we do share the feeling of being ignored by G, it isn't our place to force them what we want. all we can do is tell our side. rather than arguing, just be objective, try not to point fingers and be aggressive. on a good note, if it isn't for that, i wouldn't be forced to code and did changes that fit my eyes. the game now is more fun and awesome than ever before. we should even be thankful for making this wonderful mod.
I liked the micro of the old system . But i can understand the need for changes.
Biteinthemark, just stop mixing arguments with personal attacks, if you keep mixing them, your arguments aren't going to be listened, like, at all
Stop assuming you know what I have experience and training in. History isn't a 'philosophical education' (if you think it is, you're ignorant), and - furthermore - you have no idea what else I have training in. For your own sake, pump the brakes, you look like a fool with all of these ad hominem attacks, it makes everything you say a jaded mess.
I've said it before, but I really am done this time. You can say whatever you like, you'll elicit no response from me.
Hey look, buddy, he's an Engineer. That means he solves problems. Not problems like "what is beauty?" because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. He solves practical problems. For instance, how are you gonna stop some big mean happiness problem from tearing the players a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer: listen to BiteInTheMark. And if that doesn't work? Listen to BiteInTheMark more.
I'm not your buddy, pal.
I know about backseat gaming, but I never imagined some people would want to backseat game-design, too.
Separate names with a comma.