New Beta Version - September 25th (9-25)

[Gazebo]

@Gazebo, I still don't understand how your GAP fixes the problem. Suppose I am cruising along at 20 Happiness, hit a key tech, and drop to -40. What does the GAP do? Well, it means that I have a small buffer before the effects start kicking in. However, it doens't actually resolve the underlying issue - it is a band aid. How can I resolve the underlying issue? I need to either a) reduce needs, or b) increase the relevant yields. Reducing needs can mean teching to a new building, but I might not have time for that, or there might not even be one available for a few eras, depending on when my problems started. Increasing the yields is tough, because the GAP buffer means my growth keeps up, which means the yields I need to meet are also increasing. I just don't see how GAP solves the problem, at all.

The solution has to be something that screams at the player "STOP ALL GROWTH NOW". GAP does not do that.

If you're not going with Migration, fine, what about the Food penalty discussed above? It's not my favourite solution, but a) it would actually work, and b) it should only require minimal coding, in my impression.

We already have a growth penalty.

G

 

[CrabHelmet]

@Gazebo As has been discussed at length above, a growth penalty is insufficient. It needs to be a *food* penalty.

EDIT: also, the gold penalty should be removed. Unhappiness happens when your population:infrastructure ratio is wrong. One of the ways to improve infrastructure is gold. So unhappiness affecting gold is part of the reason for the spiral.

 

[CppMaster]

GAP will just give you more time to solve happiness problems, so it would be slightly easier than now. IMHO happiness is not too hard even without this change.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Okay, so the position now is that good players almost never face happiness problems to begin with, because they intuitively understand the sorts of moves that lead to high unhappiness. Less good players face happiness problems because they don't intuitively understand the sorts of moves that lead to high happiness. Giving them more time doesn't actually allow them to solve the happiness problems, because it is clear they don't understand why they ended up in the problem in the first place (or they would not be there). The mechanic doesn't need to offer more time, it needs to offer more guidance - some sort of message to the player that their population is too high, and some sort of help in reducing it.

I really think GAP would be a bad idea, and I am really going to fight this corner because this isn't something that impacts high-level players, it's something that impacts new VP players, the most important (we were all new once!). I introduced VP to several of my friends and have been watching them learn to play. The idea of "don't grow unless it benefits you" is really hard for them, because it is completely at odds with Vanilla, which prioritizes all the growth, all the time, within the Luxury cap. Moreover, there's nothing that hints this is even a good idea, since excess growth doesn't immediately lead into happiness and the upset hits you in a sudden shock on key techs. I've had to explain it to them, and I only know from trial and error at this point.

GAP will not help them. Nothing about your GAP going down tells you you need to reduce growth. In fact, I'll go further. A GAP buffer will be worse than the status quo. Why? Because during your GAP buffer, the current effects of Unhappiness will not be active, which means there is no reduced growth, which means even that one existing hint your growth has been the problem will be gone. Instead, players won't find that out until they're not only in Unhappiness, but drained all of their GAP as well. That's not helpful. (it also creates a really weird overlap between GAP and Happiness, where the two mechanics are difficult to conceptually pull apart. What's the difference between +1 GAP per turn and +1 Empire-wide Happiness? is there even a difference now?)

I honestly think if you are suggesting this, you have not watched new players try to pick up VP in a while. Feel free to prove me wrong, I just really do not understand where this suggestion is coming from. I would literally prefer the status quo to this change.

Here is the most minimalist change I can suggest which directly addresses the problem:
* Unhappy Empires have Empire-wide penalties to Growth, Science, Culture, and Faith.
* There are no penalties to either Production or Gold from Unhappiness.
* Unhappy Cities in Unhappy Empires have penalties to Food, which is not included in Distress calculations.
* Remove Unhappiness from Starvation.

Now:
* Unhappiness slowly fixes itself, because your Citizens decrease, decreasing needs.
* Unhappiness gets no worse, because Growth stops.
* You aren't inhibited from improving Infrastructure, because Production and Gold are now unaffected, which cuts the spiral.

 

[tu_79]

Unhappiness already reduces growth.

As of now, this is true, but not in the sense I was proposing. Suppose you have a city with 6 unhappy people, but your empire stays at 30 happiness. You are not suffering any growth penalty, so that highly unhappy city keeps growing.

What I'm asking for is unhappy people eating more food in the city, like they were specialists. So, even when your empire is happy, those cities won't grow to become huge happiness pits unless you purposedly feed them to indigestion.

 

[CppMaster]

I really think GAP would be a bad idea, and I am really going to fight this corner because this isn't something that impacts high-level players, it's something that impacts new VP players, the most important (we were all new once!)

I disagree. Why would you say that new players are more important than experienced ones? Experienced players contribute to mod mods and their opinions in balance and general threads are much more valuable. This mod and any other mod can live without new players, but the experienced ones are essential.

 

[CrabHelmet]

@tu_79 - I do think that is a possible approach. My reservations are this: take my Portugal Tradition game. I have a very happy Empire - +27 Happiness. However, only 4/5 of my Cities are actually Happy. If you apply the penalty to Unhappy Cities in overall Happy Empires, it actually has a really big impact, because most Cities are normally Unhappy, that's just how VP is currently built.

I don't think what you are suggesting and what I am suggesting are very far apart though; I also think yours is a viable solution, it just maybe goes too far in the other direction. I'm essentially saying: Unhappy Cities in Unhappy Empires get a Food penalty (e.g. consume more food), you are saying Unhappy Cities even in Happy Empires consume more food (e.g. get a Food penalty). It's not a big difference and I wouldn't mind testing either, particularly since it means we are roughly on the same page.

@CppMaster - even if you think that's true, experienced players don't experience happiness problems. I can't actually remember the last game I had where I fell into significant unhappiness. It is very, very rare I fall below even -10 for more than a few turns. So the solution to this can only be found by looking to the new player.

 

[CppMaster]

@CppMaster - even if you think that's true, experienced players don't experience happiness problems. I can't actually remember the last game I had where I fell into significant unhappiness. It is very, very rare I fall below even -10 for more than a few turns. So the solution to this can only be found by looking to the new player.

Yeah, I know that better players play better, duh! I'm just strongly disagreeing with statement that new players are more important than experienced ones.

 

[tu_79]

Yeah, I know that better players play better, duh! I'm just strongly disagreeing with statement that new players are more important than experienced ones.

Mmm, as important as experienced ones, then? They are the fanbase that allows the mod to grow and provide new players when the old ones die.

 

[tu_79]

My reservations are this: take my Portugal Tradition game. I have a very happy Empire - +27 Happiness. However, only 4/5 of my Cities are actually Happy. If you apply the penalty to Unhappy Cities in overall Happy Empires, it actually has a really big impact, because most Cities are normally Unhappy, that's just how VP is currently built.

I would agree if it weren't for the brutal swings in huge empires. Can't you remember? From 30 happiness to -70 in just a bunch of turns. If you wait until your empire is unhappy, then it's too late.

 

[CppMaster]

Mmm, as important as experienced ones, then? They are the fanbase that allows the mod to grow and provide new players when the old ones die.

Still, their contribution to mod mods development are non existent and their opinions in balance and general threads are not as valuable, therefore they are not as important either. Unless there is some correlation that says the longer you play this mod the higher is chance that you will quit the mod, but I feel that it's the opposite. I liked VP more and more as I were getting to know it.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I think you can have a surprisingly large amount of unhappy Cities without ever actually being close to Empire-wide Unhappiness, but maybe you're right and we need to be even more pro-active. As I said, it might be good to test both versions.

 

[tu_79]

Still, their contribution to mod mods development are non existent and their opinions in balance and general threads are not as valuable, therefore they are not as important either. Unless there is some correlation that says the longer you play this mod the higher is chance that you will quit the mod, but I feel that it's the opposite. I liked VP more and more as I were getting to know it.

Counterpoint. You get so used to some irks that you no longer notice. New players do.

 

[tu_79]

I think you can have a surprisingly large amount of unhappy Cities without ever actually being close to Empire-wide Unhappiness, but maybe you're right and we need to be even more pro-active. As I said, it might be good to test both versions.

Then, better try the easiest to implement, ain't it?

 

[CppMaster]

That's true, but would you say that's those irks are more valuable than experience? They might, I don't know. Good point, though.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Use top level smoothing _plus_ an ‘overflow’ pool of ‘becoming unhappy’ citizens. So happiness can only change by 1 per turn, but the overflow pool of ‘pressure’ holds the other changing values. Make sense?

Gazebo, could you expand a bit more on this possibility? I personally prefer this concept much more to the GAP changes discussed here. Would it be possible to be able to change the number by which happiness can change per turn from 1 to another number, like 10 or 15?

 

[Blue Ghost]

New players are definitely more important, since there are (or at least should be) more of them. If a game’s playerbase consists mostly of enfranchised players, that means the game is stagnating. A healthy player base is one that gets a steady influx of new and less experienced players, so the game should definitely pay special attention to cater to their needs lest it die out. Plus new players have less of a voice, so it’s easy for them to be left out unless we pay extra attention to them.

 

[CppMaster]

Oh, you mean collectively, then it might be true. I meant that on average, an experienced player is more valuable than new one, regardless of numbers.
And I agree that if a change will make a big positive difference for new players and small negative difference for experienced players (like happiness becoming too easy), then it's probably worth it.

 

[Stalker0]

Rhetorical questions rankle me.

To be honest it is definitely a difficult balance, but in this case, it would be a pretty minor amount of new code. Just a GAP < 0 check.

Also, discussions don’t hurt anything - we can discuss changes but that doesn’t mean it is going to happen.

G

Fair note, hehe I actually took out that line and put it back because I thought it might be a bit snarky. Should have gone with the gut.

Of course discussing solutions should be encouraged, but normally we have a lens that says “once a solution requires a certain amount of change, especially code changes...it’s normally taken off the table.”

I feel like the GAP met that threshold. I also think the migration concept falls in that bucket.

 

[crdvis16]

I think I'd like to give my vote (whatever that's worth) to Crabhelmet's side of the argument that unhappiness's primary penalty should be directed toward population as I agree that it is the clearest way to indicate to players that unhappiness is primarily a result of a growth vs production imbalance.

However, getting that message across could be tough. The default city manager abhors allowing population loss so penalizing food might just lead to the weird situation where an unhappy city ends up working only farm tiles to try to stay positive in growth and neglects good production tiles, leading that city to stay unhappy. It isn't intuitive to players that the city should be production focused even to the point of starvation in order to climb out of unhappiness. So I'm not sure how to actually implement a proper happiness system that shows players "stop growing and start producing to get happy!".

I do agree that the current unhappiness penalties against empire wide gold and production are counter productive and can lead to downward spirals. Maybe just removing those penalties and drastically increasing the penalty against food in unhappy cities whenever the empire as a whole is unhappy would be enough as crabhelmet argues.

Edit: it occurred to me that the ideal setting for an unhappy city when empire wide unhappiness is a problem is the 'building a settler" mode of impossible growth and ignoring of food tiles. Could a city be locked into that mode when unhappiness is a problem? That would more clearly tie unhappiness to growth/production balance for players.