New Beta Version - March 14th (3-14)

[Txurce]

I know about backseat gaming, but I never imagined some people would want to backseat game-design, too.

Ha ha! From my own experience in a "creative" field, I think most people with a little knowledge like to think they have a lot of knowledge. They like to share their opinions, walk away and let you do the grunt work — where the true knowledge lies — then come back and critique what you did. They almost never move from the back seat to the front, because no one wants them near the wheel. And to be honest, being behind the wheel is usually not their goal. Talking from the backseat gives them a sense of influence and ability without total commitment, or a true test of their knowledge. Experientially, that feels pretty good. To the driver, it's sometimes useful, and frequently a pain in the ass. The problem with driving a car in the internet is that it has a gigantic backseat. You are going to end up with more than your share of people with broken filters. You have to either tune them out, or pull over and walk away.

 

[theMisterRud]

I know about backseat gaming, but I never imagined some people would want to backseat game-design, too.

Dude, you have no idea: I use to follow games with extensive post launch support (right now Overwatch and Division 2) and the same arguments and comments apply: both in those communities and in this one.

It's kind of universal honestly.

Related: as a casual VP player, the new happiness system feels much smoother.

 

[Gazebo]

Ha ha! From my own experience in a "creative" field, I think most people with a little knowledge like to think they have a lot of knowledge. They like to share their opinions, walk away and let you do the grunt work — where the true knowledge lies — then come back and critique what you did. They almost never move from the back seat to the front, because no one wants them near the wheel. And to be honest, being behind the wheel is usually not their goal. Talking from the backseat gives them a sense of influence and ability without total commitment, or a true test of their knowledge. Experientially, that feels pretty good. To the driver, it's sometimes useful, and frequently a pain in the ass. The problem with driving a car in the internet is that it has a gigantic backseat. You are going to end up with more than your share of people with broken filters. You have to either tune them out, or pull over and walk away.

You hit me right in the job.

G

 

[Bhawb]

I know about backseat gaming, but I never imagined some people would want to backseat game-design, too.

Have you ever been on a game forum before? Honest question, not to insult, but literally every single forum, reddit, tweet, blog, any discussion related to a specific game will have tons of people critiquing game design. And every single one of those discussions will have their BITM, literally every one of them. There is always someone who knows better, who sees things from a more technical standpoint than you, a pathetic lowly game designer, who just has all the answers for all the problems that somehow only they see and no one else has an issue with. These same people also consistently don't give relevant or useful feedback.

The answer is for the community to consistently explain why they are wrong, not for the benefit of the know-it-all themselves, but for the sake of the community at large. And anyone actually involved in design should ignore them, because engaging people like that only gives a platform and validity to completely invalid ideas.

 

[tu_79]

Besides his ad hominem tendency, Bite plays the game and has identified some flaws in design. He might not provide the answer, or do the hard work, but fulfills the tester job. There's no need to prey on him.

Though I understand Gazebo reaction. I'd be irritated too if someone implied that I know nothing about history because I have a technical background.
How can anyone be a coder without some basic mathematical skills? That's just impossible.

One thing about engineers, maybe not for them all, is that they care more about things than they do about people. Not a bad thing in itself, since someone in this world has to create stuff, but we would be wise not hiring an engineer for a marketing job.

And I hope we could stop talking about prejudices and stereotypes... (said the man who talked about them )

 

[Bhawb]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but I wouldn't spend my time looking at it hoping to catch it those two times. Its up to G to decide if that's what he wants to do with his time, or just listen to contributors who are more consistent sources of useful constructive feedback. I'm not saying BITM has never said anything useful (okay I kinda implied it, I'm sure he's had valid feedback soemtimes), but at some point it just isn't worth the trouble.

 

[Stalker0]

Besides his ad hominem tendency, Bite plays the game and has identified some flaws in design. He might not provide the answer, or do the hard work, but fulfills the tester job. There's no need to prey on him.

I agree. On the one hand, Bite is often very rude. I have defended him many times, because he has had legitimately good ideas (sometimes), but the delivery is not acceptable. And when you debate ideas, the delivery matters. The structure of an argument is as important as the facts themselves.

On the other hand....we don't also need to be rude. Lets not fall into the same trap. I would rather ignore than fight back in those instances.

 

[Stalker0]

Ha ha! From my own experience in a "creative" field, I think most people with a little knowledge like to think they have a lot of knowledge. They like to share their opinions, walk away and let you do the grunt work — where the true knowledge lies — then come back and critique what you did.

This is true....to a point. On the one hand, the player of a game will never understand the complexity, the nuisance, and the dark underbelly of building that game. Their comments can often be utterly ignorant.

But...and this is very important....its the players that determine if a game is successful, not the designer. It doesn't matter how much time is spent, how much math is used, how detailed the graphics, how intricate the gameplay, how historically accurate, and even....how balanced, a game is. At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters...is that players enjoy playing the game. That's it....literally nothing else really matters.

Now this mod is catering to a group of players that do place a premium on balanced gameplay, and really strong AI. So those features do make the game "more enjoyable" for the desired gamer group. But the original goalpost never changes....fun.

One of my biggest concerns on the forum is when a newer poster posts a frustration....and people reply "well they just don't know how to play the game" or "they aren't playing the game correctly". We have to be very careful about that attitude....because guess what, that is the audience. Now if G is designing this for himself, a few game designers that work with him, and the ~10-20 people that post regularly on this forum....than so be it. But I don't think that is the plan, and to continue to appeal to a larger audience (and so far based on downloads it certainly is!), than its vital to continuously listen to player feedback.

Yes that feedback is often ignorant, and sometimes its complete "back seat design"....but its still important to listen. Because if enough people express concern or frustration....even if they themselves don't understand why they feel that way....then that is something we should take seriously.

My post is not to indicate that we are currently ignoring player feedback, but its an easy trap to fall into, one we must always be on the watch for.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Besides his ad hominem tendency, Bite plays the game and has identified some flaws in design. He might not provide the answer, or do the hard work, but fulfills the tester job. There's no need to prey on him.

Though I understand Gazebo reaction. I'd be irritated too if someone implied that I know nothing about history because I have a technical background.
How can anyone be a coder without some basic mathematical skills? That's just impossible.

One thing about engineers, maybe not for them all, is that they care more about things than they do about people. Not a bad thing in itself, since someone in this world has to create stuff, but we would be wise not hiring an engineer for a marketing job.

And I hope we could stop talking about prejudices and stereotypes... (said the man who talked about them )

We can bury the discussion for now and simply see where the system is going. But I really dislike to see someone saying I assumed Gazebo has no mathematical or technical abilities. He surely needs those skills to keep this mod running. But people with different education and background have different point of views and would try to solve problems differently.
(BTW its a bit sad it's OK if he assumes I have no clue about the code or can't understand how the mechanics work but if I suggest different ways to solve a problem everyone is hunting me )
But for the sake of peace and tranquility, let's ignore what I have said.

 

[Cat-du-fromage]

After several games i really like the challenge adding with this beta, no more perma 200+ happiness, being in permanent war without being punish.

it's not perfect (unlucky +1 citizen goody huts^^''') but it far far better than the previous system(in my opinion).

but since it appears frustrating for some people, maybe a "happiness difficulty level setting" would be welcome?

though i always play in normal time, never try marathon or epic, maybe the fact that the infrastructure are built slower have a huge impact on happiness? (didn't check if there were a scale depending on the "time setting")

 

[Stalker0]

So getting back to the debate. So @Gazebo , now that my luxury = econ boost idea has been better explained by some people's follow up threads, do you see any merit to it?

 

[Gazebo]

So getting back to the debate. So @Gazebo , now that my luxury = econ boost idea has been better explained by some people's follow up threads, do you see any merit to it?

One step at a time. Right now we need to get luxury value with happiness set first.

G

 

[Txurce]

Edit- to note, the local happiness bonus is dead. In its place, luxuries are now just an empire wide bonus. And it’s a flat value, gained as a bulk value and distributed evenly amongst all cities. 2 per owned unique or traded for luxury. Easy.

Yes!

 

[Gazebo]

Update time!

The local happiness bonus is dead. In its place, luxuries are now just an empire wide bonus. And it’s a flat value, gained as a bulk value and distributed evenly amongst all cities. 2 per owned unique or traded for luxury. Easy.

Furthermore, I’ve tweaked the difficulty handicap and the national happiness metric.

First, no more handicap per each city. Now, there are two handicaps: one for capital only, and another at the empire level, distributed amongst cities evenly. This flat value guarantees that you won’t have those pesky rebels at turn 5 because of a hut, and Spain is safe again.

Second, the national happiness metric is now Happy Faces * 100 / Unhappy Faces.

This reels in the wide friendly nature of the current system as your national happiness is now a proportion of the imbalance of happy and unhappy faces.

This also goes towards what Enginseer wanted, in that the new happy/unhappy/very/super unhappy lines are now 60/40/20. More akin to some kind of political opinion model.

Overall, these changes make wide more challenging, and slightly increase the overall difficulty of the system, while also increasing the focus on simple integers.

 

[Txurce]

Update time!

The local happiness bonus is dead. In its place, luxuries are now just an empire wide bonus. And it’s a flat value, gained as a bulk value and distributed evenly amongst all cities. 2 per owned unique or traded for luxury. Easy.

Furthermore, I’ve tweaked the difficulty handicap and the national happiness metric.

First, no more handicap per each city. Now, there are two handicaps: one for capital only, and another at the empire level, distributed amongst cities evenly. This flat value guarantees that you won’t have those pesky rebels at turn 5 because of a hut, and Spain is safe again.

Second, the national happiness metric is now Happy Faces * 100 / Unhappy Faces.

This reels in the wide friendly nature of the current system as your national happiness is now a proportion of the imbalance of happy and unhappy faces.

This also goes towards what Enginseer wanted, in that the new happy/unhappy/very/super unhappy lines are now 60/40/20. More akin to some kind of political opinion model.

Overall, these changes make wide more challenging, and slightly increase the overall difficulty of the system, while also increasing the focus on simple integers.

Sounds good. Am I right in assuming that the even distribution among cities smooths some of the downside for hammer-poor locations?

 

[Gazebo]

Sounds good. Am I right in assuming that the even distribution among cities smooths some of the downside for hammer-poor locations?

I guess? Clarify?

G

 

[Txurce]

I guess? Clarify?

G

One concern about too much individual penalizing of cities is that a hammer-poor city will have a very hard time building itself out of trouble. It's a legitimate concern, athough to some degree it's a self-created problem. It seemed to me that an even handicap distribution among cities would smooth some of the downside for hammer-poor locations. Putting it differently, do non-capital cities share a collective burden to some degree?

 

[Gazebo]

One concern about too much individual penalizing of cities is that a hammer-poor city will have a very hard time building itself out of trouble. It's a legitimate concern, athough to some degree it's a self-created problem. It seemed to me that an even handicap distribution among cities would smooth some of the downside for hammer-poor locations. Putting it differently, do non-capital cities share a collective burden to some degree?

The handicap is a flat value that doesn’t scale, so more cities = thinner and thinner handicap base per city.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Update time!
The local happiness bonus is dead. In its place, luxuries are now just an empire wide bonus. And it’s a flat value, gained as a bulk value and distributed evenly amongst all cities. 2 per owned unique or traded for luxury. Easy.

So to ensure I understand. I have 5 cities and 3 unique luxuries. So +6 global bonus.

1) All of my cities gain a +1 bonus to happy (from the Luxury Global Bonus).
2) I have used 5 of my 6 Global bonus (+1 happy x 5 cities). So I have 1 overflow happiness.
3) Capital gains an additional +1 from the overlow. So now has a +2 lux bonus to happy.

If I understand it right, the basic structure makes sense. Seems like good changes to address the biggest pain points with the current model.

 

[pineappledan]

I wonder if 2 is enough in a system like that though? Making a 6th city to connect a 4th resource will spread your luxuries out 16% more. Whereas before you had 1.2 per city, now you have 1.33.