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

[CrazyG]

I am very curious to hear how diety players are doing with the system. So far, I've noticed that my difficulty happiness (Emperor = 3) is a pretty significant portion of my city's happiness number so far going into Medieval. I imagine if that drops to 2 or 1 it would have a pretty big impact on gameplay.

Its 2 on Deity. I think its enough to get by.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, luxuries scale off of population, you won't gain much immediately from luxuries in small cities.

G

Right now the bonus isn't triggering until City is Pop 11 or 12 (not exactly sure, I know Size 10 doesn't get it, Size 12 does).

So this means that until your cities get to size 12, there is no benefit to having a second luxury. I think it makes luxuries too weak at the moment. Getting the first one gives a solid bonus. But then you don't need another one for a very long time.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

It makes having plantation luxuries gated behind forests a bit less frustrating

 

[Gazebo]

I am very curious to hear how diety players are doing with the system. So far, I've noticed that my difficulty happiness (Emperor = 3) is a pretty significant portion of my city's happiness number so far going into Medieval. I imagine if that drops to 2 or 1 it would have a pretty big impact on gameplay.

One thing I considered (going off your luxury point) is actually having the handicap bonus fade by era. That would let me increase the luxury scaler a bit. Food for thought.

G

 

[Gazebo]

Right now the bonus isn't triggering until City is Pop 11 or 12 (not exactly sure, I know Size 10 doesn't get it, Size 12 does).

So this means that until your cities get to size 12, there is no benefit to having a second luxury. I think it makes luxuries too weak at the moment. Getting the first one gives a solid bonus. But then you don't need another one for a very long time.

Technically the function takes the total value of your luxuries and then compares them to your city pop, so it's not always 10-12.

Function:

int CvPlayer::GetBonusHappinessFromLuxuries(int iPop) const
{
    if (iPop == 0)
        return 0;

    int iTotalResourceWeight = 0;
    for(int iResourceLoop = 0; iResourceLoop < GC.getNumResourceInfos(); iResourceLoop++)
    {
        ResourceTypes eResource = (ResourceTypes) iResourceLoop;
        int iBaseVal = GetHappinessFromLuxury(eResource) * 1000;
        if (iBaseVal <= 0)
            continue;

        iBaseVal += (GetExtraHappinessPerLuxury() * 1000);

        CvResourceInfo* pInfo = GC.getResourceInfo(eResource);
        if (pInfo && pInfo->isMonopoly())
        {
            if (HasGlobalMonopoly(eResource) && pInfo->getMonopolyHappiness() > 0)
            {
                iBaseVal += (pInfo->getMonopolyHappiness() + GetMonopolyModFlat()) * 1000;
            }
        }

        // Resource bonus from Minors, and this is a Luxury we're getting from one (Policies, etc.)
        if (IsMinorResourceBonus() && getResourceFromMinors(eResource) > 0)
        {
            iBaseVal *= /*150*/ GC.getMINOR_POLICY_RESOURCE_HAPPINESS_MULTIPLIER();
            iBaseVal /= 100;
        }

        iTotalResourceWeight += iBaseVal;
    }

    if (iTotalResourceWeight <= 0)
        return 0;

    //scaler is in 1/1000th
    //int iEmpireScaler = (GetNumRealCities() * 100) + 1000;
    int iScaled = int(0.5f + iTotalResourceWeight / 1000.f * iPop * GetPlayerHappinessLuxuryPopulationFactor1000() (currently 25) / 1000);

    return max(1, iScaled);
   
}

Edit: I'm not married to this scaler - I could easily be talked into making the luxury scaler an empire-wide yield that's distributed, the only rub is that the capital would always get the remainder of the division, so it's a little uneven (this is why I opted for a local calculation).
G

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I'm in favor of keeping it local.

 

[DeAnno]

Edit: I'm not married to this scaler - I could easily be talked into making the luxury scaler an empire-wide yield that's distributed, the only rub is that the capital would always get the remainder of the division, so it's a little uneven (this is why I opted for a local calculation).

One positive there is the more empire-wide sources there are, the less uneven they end up in aggregate. Like, as it is now in earlygame, its basically just natural wonders, so your capital has that as a bonus if naturals < cities. But if it was luxes and naturals, you would usually have empire happy > cities and it would divide out at least a little bit.

Then again, the whole "uneven happiness goes to the capital" thing is a little swingy in and of itself, since under a lot of circumstances you want that, and getting more empire happiness would make the division kick in and the remainder drop, making you more unhappy. An example:

Imagine Empire Happiness is 19 on 10 cities. You get +1 in all 10 and another +9 in the capital. If EH moves to 20, then it changes to +2 in all cities, and the capital might suddenly become extremely unhappy. I'm not sure if this sort of swingyness dependent on micro is good, it seems kind of bad. It kind of makes me think Happiness should just go decimal honestly. Needs become decimal unhappiness, Empire happiness is distributed evenly in decimals, decimal unhappiness in cities results in fractional growth penalties, etc etc. This model also lets you use empire happiness a little less fearfully, since there isn't the weird remainder-management problem hanging overhead.

 

[Padre19]

To increase Distress from building ( low ) we use DefenseHapinessChange 5% or production flat -1?

 

[John.B.C]

The problem with the 'mini golden age' is that it largely benefitted players that were already ahead. The snowball thus further punished players behind the median, etc. etc. Yes, it's not as exciting to have positive happiness now as before, but it's also, overall, a less essential system. Which puts into focus the more fun parts of the game.

You're probably right, but I liked when happiness was an essential system - I enjoyed it - especially back in 2016-17, before the crazy "swings" to it I don't remember exactly, and I was new to the game and not very good at it, so perhaps I just didn't experience any swings due to not being able to grow big enough?, But back then luxuries felt useless and not having an impact, cause happiness could be solved through growing together with building the appropirate buildings, satisfying the needs (I enjoyed that part alot though). This has me wondering: are we back at a point when luxuries once again are pretty useless, and just something to be traded away for a few gold per turn? I don't understand the system yet to say this for myself.

Thumbs up for all the work you've put into this though, I really appreciate it! Change is always frustrating and maybe it will take a few weeks to adapt

 

[tu_79]

One thing I considered (going off your luxury point) is actually having the handicap bonus fade by era. That would let me increase the luxury scaler a bit. Food for thought.

G

This could make people playing a more forgiving difficulty facing a harder late game without knowing why.

G, you did not answer. Is the settling action now allowed for any case? The only thing preventing settlers (not the settling action) is the requirements of two people in the city.
The risk of overexpansion is real.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Please don't argue by argumentum ad populum and please don't pigeon hole your imagined minority groups. Thanks.

Glider, thanks for saying this. I joined these forums today so I suppose I would have belonged to that group before now. Hope I'm formatting this correctly.

This places you in a firm minority of vocal players, where most felt that happiness was becoming an overriding concern for empire management. I can recall a few versions where I felt I was more in direct competition with my top ribbon happiness meter than against other civs. I don't miss those days...

Dan, a lot of people do have strong feelings on the subject of happiness, but it's disingenous to speak for everyone. Each person has their own experiences with the game.

G, on the subject of the changes,

City is Happy (more happiness than unhappiness): Growth bonus (currently 10% growth bonus per point of local happy above 0)

Does this have a cap?

 

[John.B.C]

Just fired up a game as Venice and by turn 30 my 5 population city had all 5 citizens unhappy (2 happiness from difficulty level) resulting in 2/5 = 40% happiness. By turn 40 I've had 6 barbarian rebels spawn in my territory .

Maybe it's a weird corner case of being Tradition (so quick population growth) and having luxes I can't improve yet (cinnamon and coral)? Also didn't find any natural wonders which would have helped immensely at this point. I went shrine-monument-well-council and 2 warriors intermixed so my infrastructure is about as good as I could make it at this point. The unhappiness is 2 from distress, 3 from poverty.

I'm not real sure this is a recoverable game as the rebels really stole a bunch from my city.

EDIT: second try as Venice is better so far. I dipped down to 60% happiness after taking the tradition opener and getting to 5 citizens (and found a natural wonder this game so that helped) but then bought a nearby CS which actually improved my happiness haha. I wonder if maybe the +2 citizens opener from tradition is clashing with the new happiness system a bit?

I share this experience, I abandoned my game going authority with Shaka just growing, expanding in every direction, not caring about happiness at all (played until 75 b.c.), to starting a new game with the Ottomans going tradition. I have this beautiful starting location and did everything like I usually do when going tradition. But before stonehenge is complete, when picking my first policy, my empire is now very unhappy with 50% unhappiness. And with all the rebells that are spawning, together with a camp I now won't be able to kill (due to -20 combat). I will have to let this game go.

So going from growth, expansion, not caring at all (90-100% happiness at all time), to this experience when I'm overrun by unhappiness from start with a single city - has got me really confused to how this system works? I don't dare go tradition again at this point in time.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe the 2 pop on the opener is a bomb with the new system?

Does this have a cap

the cap is the local population

 

[CrazyG]

The basic handicap should have two parts, one wide (2 per city) and one tall (a spare reserve of like 3).

This should make taking the tradition capital stable, and be fine overall.

Playing with the system more, I like the idea of free happiness per city, but the luxury system needs a look at. I think in general you want to make a mix of things that go wide, and things that go tall. Maybe find a way to get extra happiness to divide out in a more natural way.

I liked the +10% of everything for 10 happiness because it felt good to get, but in terms of gameplay it wasn't a great addition.

 

[John.B.C]

Maybe the 2 pop on the opener is a bomb with the new system?the cap is the local population

Yeah and this has me totally confused to how on earth this system works!? I had my second city situated at an floodplain area (in my last game) to grow completely unhindred with no production, no improved tiles, and no infrastructure - without any problems what so ever. Why would I get away with growth and continued expansion here, and now not getting away with only but a little "growth" in a single city!?

I simply can't connect the dots here...This to me, challanges logic and common sense, and would still do so even if the tradition tree would get a small buff to happiness. It still woldn't make sense and I still wouldn't have a clue to what's going on (like I rarely do ).

EDIT: But in my former game I rushed to connect two diffrent luxuries at my capital, maybe they helped? But wait, they don't give happiness from start or do they?

 

[crdvis16]

Yeah and this has me totally confused to how on earth this system works!? I had my second city situated at an floodplain area (in my last game) to grow completely unhindred with no production, no improved tiles, and no infrastructure - without any problems what so ever. Why would I get away with growth and continued expansion here, and now not getting away with only but a little "growth" in a single city!?

I simply can't connect the dots here...This to me, challanges logic and common sense, and would still do so even if the tradition tree would get a small buff to happiness. It still woldn't make sense and I still wouldn't have a clue to what's going on (like I rarely do ).

EDIT: But in my former game I rushed to connect two diffrent luxuries at my capital, maybe they helped? But wait, they don't give happiness from start or do they?

In my current Venice game, grabbing a CS and finding a natural wonder solved my happiness issues until I could connect a few luxes. So it seems you can make it work as tradition, it's just a little touchy. I'm sure G can figure out a way to make happiness a little easier initially for tradition.

 

[tu_79]

Glider, thanks for saying this. I joined these forums today so I suppose I would have belonged to that group before now. Hope I'm formatting this correctly.



Dan, a lot of people do have strong feelings on the subject of happiness, but it's disingenous to speak for everyone. Each person has their own experiences with the game.

G, on the subject of the changes,



Does this have a cap?

I would not say you were a silent lurker, at least not in reddit

The cap is 100%, meaning no growth at all.

 

[pineappledan]

Okay, so I’m going through all the happiness buildings and I’ve got to say... what’s the deal with late-game needs reductions? Like, Stadium got BONED.

It used to be 1 unmodded happiness and 50% boredom reduction, which was massive.

Now it’s -1 unhappiness from boredom.

So what’s the thinking? Is the happiness just unnecessary anymore, or is this an oversight? Cause stadiums used to take boredom out back and shoot it; now it’s worse than an amphitheater for that job, cause its generation is lower and the boredom mitigation is the same.

 

[Wexmajor]

I think luxuries should always have at least some benefit no matter how early game, even if it's a weak one. Otherwise trading for luxuries is just a trap for the AI and unknowledgable players.

 

[Stalker0]

So I'm playing Spain on a standard continents map. I've just gotten to Turn 103 and have 8 cities (naturally, no conquest). My plan this game is expand as much as possible, to test the limits of the system. I have hit my maximum passive space at the moment, so I'm about to go to war to get more.

My stats:

1) 80% global happiness.
2) Most of my cities are actually unhappy locally. One city I built on a flood plains for maximum growth is currently 4 happy, 10 unhappy...so its basically stopped growing around Pop 10.
3) I have very few specialists at the moment.

My notes:

1) I like the UI so far. The Global Happiness bar makes good sense (for some reason I've never really understood the two numbers up top before). The needs numbers keep the math but places it towards the back. I can see clearly my unhappy numbers, and the max possible they can have. It all makes good sense to me. The exception is the luxury number, I don't understand why its 1 or 2 or whatever it is.

2) On the other hand, the Global Happiness has lured me into a false sense of security. I honestly thought my happiness was better until I checked all of my cities for this posting, and I was surprised how "bad" things are in my cities. This is an important note, micromanagement is now greater in this system. In the old system as long as the big happy number at the top was good, I was good. Now...I have to watch all of my cities to ensure they are getting benefits.

3) Luxuries don't matter. I currently have 5 luxuries, and only 1 of them is actually giving me a benefit (even in my capital of 12 pop I just checked). This maybe an area where luxuries have to go back to Global. At 1 per luxury in every city it would be way too good, but if luxs don't even give me 1 happy than they aren't worth anything.

4) Specialists are really expensive right now. Effectively I lose 2 (or more) food, +1 GAP, and 5% growth at minimum to have a specialist...that's a lot. My governors are avoiding them like the plague, but could be my current happiness scenario, we will see.

5) Expansion makes Global Happiness easier not harder. With my luxury and base happiness from difficulty (1+3 = 4), I get a 5 pop cushion in every city. That city can be a total dirtball, but I can let it grow to 5 and then cut growth. This adds 1 unhappy and 5 pop to my Global Total (aka 80% happy). Now we will see how it transitions later game as my expansion slows and my cities want to develop. But for right now, not only is expansion not penalized...its actually incentivized.


So my current plan. Start shifting into war to push further, and then see if I can infrastructure up my cities out of their current unhappiness...and see how I look.