Yeah, I would like to see luxuries tried at 1 flat happiness + 1% SCFG.I like the idea of luxuries giving % bonuses to yields.
Yeah, I would like to see luxuries tried at 1 flat happiness + 1% SCFG.I like the idea of luxuries giving % bonuses to yields.
Congrats, you’ve researched the monopoly system!
G
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.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.
I posted 4 points for a fix to the happiness system. Gazebo tried them all.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.
Monopoly system does nothing to encourage trade or expansion for unique resources.Congrats, you’ve researched the monopoly system!
G
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.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.
I was.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.
No. G was trying to implement it along with other changes. But he didn't try to implement just this.But it wasnt done for the old system
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.And I dunno why the suggestion was ignored.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Oh, yes. I remember.No, you were suggesting a global comparison version, like its now. Somewhere between a half year and a year ago.
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?
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.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.
G
G, just let him say his opinion, suggestions and criticism besides you can just ignore and not obliged to reply and explain.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.
G
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
G
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.