But it’s not... this is kinda proving my point that capping it at 100% is misleading.
New Beta Version - March 14th (3-14)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
LarryAR
Chieftain
I am usually a version behind whatever is being discussed so my input has not been worth much.
Now I am current with 3-14 version Poland, Small, King, Standard. Happiness is definitely more playable.
Thanks, I appreciate the brainstorming.
Although I don’t completely understand the mechanism yet, happiness seems to be evolving nicely and so am I.
Now I am current with 3-14 version Poland, Small, King, Standard. Happiness is definitely more playable.
Thanks, I appreciate the brainstorming.
Although I don’t completely understand the mechanism yet, happiness seems to be evolving nicely and so am I.
I'm going to wait for a bit longer to try the new happiness system, but I have to say I have no problems with the old one (1-15). Happiness always stays above 50 throughout mid-to-late game, and most cities have only 1-2 unhappiness. In the new system, the needs multipliers are so high that unhappiness seems to be unavoidable, and you need extra happiness sources to balance it out. Sounds like a completely different approach to me.
tu_79
Deity
We could use a higher cap.
For example, having double happy faces than unhappy is 200%, but it can be expressed as +100%. In the same way, having half the happy faces is 50%, but it can be expressed as - 50%. All being equal is +0%.
Ranging from - 100% to +100% would give a sense of actual percentage (which is not, it's a rate), while giving the awareness of the buffer we are looking for.
What about:
If happy > unhappy, happiness = +100% - unhappy/happy
If happy <= unhappy, happiness = -100% + happy/unhappy
Then there's no cap and it naturally ranges from -100% to +100%.
There's also the special case when both happy and unhappy are 0 (can that happen?) In that case happiness should be 0%.
If happy > unhappy, happiness = +100% - unhappy/happy
If happy <= unhappy, happiness = -100% + happy/unhappy
Then there's no cap and it naturally ranges from -100% to +100%.
There's also the special case when both happy and unhappy are 0 (can that happen?) In that case happiness should be 0%.
I would suggest my earlier misinterpretation actually might be the best way to measure. If we use 100%*(Happy)/(Happy+Unhappy), then the function is naturally limited between 0% and 100%. In addition, when Happy = Unhappy, it's 50%, which seems very intuitive to me as an "Approval Rating"
This would even translate to the 60/40/20 benchmarks this new patch will use accurately. In my measuring system, they would be at 37.5%/28.6%/16.7%. This could maybe be changed to something like 40/30/20 if we wanted round numbers similar to the ones established already.
This would even translate to the 60/40/20 benchmarks this new patch will use accurately. In my measuring system, they would be at 37.5%/28.6%/16.7%. This could maybe be changed to something like 40/30/20 if we wanted round numbers similar to the ones established already.
A wild Kim appears!
Is this a shot at Glorious Supreme Leader...?
Also, I'm curious (as I rarely play full Dom games) as to what the general intended window is for a DV? Is it supposed to be in-line with the others (350-400 turns on Standard settings)? I've seen plenty of players speak on their DV's in the 300 turn range, sometimes even earlier, but if wide is going to be hit harder with upcoming changes, I just want to get an idea of where that puts a DV on average; is there ever any instances of an AI DV within your testings?
I ask because my current Aztec game is sitting at around turn 250, with what feels like a solid pace (Standard/King/Continents) on 23 cities (around 8 puppets), with 3 other capitals under control, as well as having 2 vassals and 19 wonders. I've got a decent tech/policy lead since decimating my closest competition, and I've managed to hover between 70-80% happy for the last 100 turns or so thanks to an extended/continuous GA. Gold is also no issue, and yields in general are great with monopolies and my synergy of Way of Transcendence/Crusader/Authority. I'm receiving happy bonuses through Fealty and am already half way through the Imp tree. I've only just now dipped briefly under 70% happy (currently building Neuschwanstein to aide me), but this all feels like the perfect pace (happiness wise) considering how well I've played. Keep in mind that I've taken numerous breaks from war (no weariness), and have great infrastructure throughout my empire; Mendicancy + Fealty ITR boosts have ensured that even my puppets aren't lacking. My empire pop is understandably high, but everything else has been played essentially (objectively) perfect.
I'm curious now how to pursue the next stages, as all 4 other capitals are grouped in the neighboring continent; strategy is straight forward, but I'm cautious of unhappiness. With my tech lead and supply, I could walk through and probably have all 4 capitals relatively soon, falling within that 300 turn range I was referencing, and if I wait then I risk the opportunity for the other 4 civs to upgrade their units and I lose the prime advantage.
I guess I'd just like to know if this sounds about right, from your intended design perspective. Overall, I'm super pleased with this new system and the fact that there are no more catastrophic swings, which I think everyone could agree was the biggest issue holding VP back.
JohannesWasHere
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2018
- Messages
- 31
The new happiness system in the game I'm currently playing with Askia on Prince, continents, standard map size with 2 x recommended AI feels very good. I feel in control and it never felt like that before. Keeping it over 75% is a good goal and I only had 1 or 2 hiccups coming close to 50%. That was during massive early expansion (+war?), which felt right and justified. I never expected a good happiness system, I'm very surprised. The AI felt very intelligent in settling, engaging in wars and friendships, diplomacy is a blast. We just entered the modern era.
DonStill
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2018
- Messages
- 70
I can't be 100% certain, but if I'm engaged in a Long War and I'm actually winning to the point where they're economy is just their capital and everything there is pillaged, they just lose most of everything in their capital it looks like. The most obvious ways to tell is that they'll go from having 30-something or 24 defense to 8, the base defense for a capital. Then the wonders they built are up for grabs. It could be a mod conflict but it only started happening in this version. I'll check if there's anything else strange going on.
tu_79
Deity
I would love to try this one.
Last edited:
vyyt
Deity
It shouldn't be possible to sell wonders - even for AIs. Even if a city is razed to the ground and it contained some wonders,the said wondesw should be lost forever, you shouldn't be able to rebuild them. Looks like a bug or a mod conflict to me.
I like this one.
tu_79
Deity
Look at Rhys DeAnno proposal. I think it's better than mine.
It’s not bad. I’m tempted to do his and add 50 to it so that balance = 100, otherwise there’s a whole spectrum of ‘better than 50’ that’s wasted.
G
tu_79
Deity
Why to add 50?
Double the value.
50 becomes 100.
100 becomes 200.
0 is still 0.
If you added 50, then the lowest value would be 50.
Gothic_Empire
AKA, Ramen Empire
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,502
I have also never seen this.
Sorry, on mobile - what I meant was I want the baseline to be 100% for 'neutral,' not 50% as there aren't bonuses for going above 100% as before, so I'm going to tweak the function to become a base 100.
G
I hadn’t seen his yet. Yeah his is pretty darn good.
Biggest issue with it is that it is hard to translate into UI, and it also 'double dips' on population as a stabilizer.
G
tu_79
Deity
Sooo, you'll keep DeAnno's metric and move where the penalties are?
- Status
