1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New Version - February 17th (2-17)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Feb 17, 2019.

  1. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,530
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    It could be, but I think they should adapt, independently by the space. Most of the pathfinders and also the warriors were running around like chicken and get slaughtered by barbarians. 10 less CS means only 1 more possible city for each civ, else its the standard setting. Brazil had only 3 cities after 135 turns and picked progress. In that state, most of the barbs were gone and there was room for 8-10 more cities. Morocco had an awesome start with 2 floodplain/incene, a plains tea and several lake tiles, but wasted its hammers for 3 pathfinder after constructing monument. Thats a huge penalty.
     
  2. Bromar1

    Bromar1 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    740
    I see 4 :c5unhappy: and 3 :c5unhappy: so my brain expects 7 :c5unhappy:
     
  3. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,369
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
  4. civplayer33

    civplayer33 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Yeah that'd be perfect.
     
    Gazebo likes this.
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,369
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Done. Is this a more useful layout? It seems more legible to me.

    G
     
  6. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    What's up with the unhappiness? The food/production/science makes/needs/deficit are clearly divided by the amount of followers. How can the city expect you to make 7.68:c5science: per citizen in ancient era, as well as 6.06 :c5food::c5production: or :c5gold:?
     
    Guynemer likes this.
  7. civplayer33

    civplayer33 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Yes, I think it's much better now; though, like @Enrico Swagolo, I do wonder where those rather high needs come from; does it have to do with some peculiarities in the testing conditions? Maybe you artificially increased needs to show off the new UI properly?
     
  8. Guynemer

    Guynemer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    454
    I suppose the question I have is why does Warsaw need so much gold or science so early in the game? aaaaand I see i have been ninja'd by enrico
     
  9. Guynemer

    Guynemer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    454
    Is it a math issue? Like, a total of 7-8 science seems reasonable, as does 6 gold. Perhaps there was a function dropped somewhere, and as a result the game is expecting that as the per pop, instead of the total? not sure if I am explaining it right
     
  10. tu_79

    tu_79 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,550
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Much better. How comes that +15% +4% + 5% = 22%?

    Also, this is a minor quibble, but as @Bromar1 says, it's weird to have 3:c5unhappy:, 4:c5unhappy: and 6:c5unhappy:, and the result to be 3 and 1 and 0. Yes, I know how it happens. However, it's still weird. Should it read "Deficit: 3.44 (max 3:c5unhappy:)"?
     
    Bromar1 likes this.
  11. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,816
    The reason is quite simple:

    Imagine this simplified situation:
    3 Civs with authority and 3 Civ with progress have 2 pop in the capital, and produce 10 science per city (mostly from the palace), so 5 per citizens.
    3 Civs with tradition have 4 pop in the capital, but still produce only 10 science (since it come mostly from the palace), so 2.5 per citizens, so far less than the other Civs, in particular far less than the median.
     
  12. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,530
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I think you forgot, that the global median is gone. Now only your own cities are taken for the median. ;)
     
    Moi Magnus and Enrico Swagolo like this.
  13. Enrico Swagolo

    Enrico Swagolo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,379
    Objection, my good sir! The median only cares about your own cities now, it's not global. Also, he took Tradition himself. Look at the capital, it's 2 Culture on the tile. It's pretty much impossible for him to settle a single resource and have it provide a monopoly.
     
    Moi Magnus likes this.
  14. dylansan

    dylansan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I tend to see the numbers ("X from distress") as a quick indicator of which need suffering the strongest, so it's counter-intuitive that the yield with the biggest deficit, in this case science, is showing 0 unhappiness, when it would be responsible for 6 unhappiness with more population. I would see these numbers and focus on distress, then wonder why every new citizen gives another unhappiness.

    I'd rather the max unhappiness for each yield be what's shown (i.e. 3, 4, 6), summarized as Local :c5unhappy: Unhappiness 4 (13 limited to population). I don't think science should be listed as 0 at all, because the choice of which needs contribute to unhappiness is arbitrary. It could just as easily be 4 unhappiness from science and 0 from the rest, which means those numbers don't really mean anything, and I think they obfuscate the important information about where your unhappiness is really coming from.

    I realize that means it'll look like there's more unhappiness than there is unless you look at the total, and I have no idea how you'd include the info in the summary of all cities, as the population limits aren't clear there. But that's already a problem, if it's using the arbitrary numbers.

    What if the relative unhappiness was preserved, but scaled to the population if it's a limiting factor? So for the 3, 4, 6 scenario, it'd be normalized to .92, 1.23, 1.85. It's not as clean, but it's clear that science is the biggest contributor and it still adds up to 4, so there's no inconsistent math.
     
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,369
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    It’s not a matter of inconsistent math, it’s a factor of how unhappiness is aggregated using a hierarchy of needs. People can only be unhappy for one thing at a time.
     
  16. Guynemer

    Guynemer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    454
    You are clearly unfamiliar with Detroit sports fans.
     
  17. dylansan

    dylansan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    In this example, if I completely reduce the distress of the city, it's fully replaced by unhappiness from poverty. If I eliminate that, I'm left with the same unhappiness from Illiteracy. As a player, I'm thinking "where the hell did that science need come from? I just had zero unhappiness from science!"

    Regardless of how the numbers are displayed, if I have 6 potential unhappiness from science, that's going to become 6 actual unhappiness from science as soon as I fix my other problems. If I see that I have 3 unhappiness from distress, but fixing the distress doesn't actual reduce my unhappiness, then that number 3 was completely useless information to me.

    The fact is that if I want to get rid of the unhappiness in this city, I have to get rid of 13 total unhappiness, not 4. I may only feel the effects of 4 at any given time, but if I get rid of 4 unhappiness, I'm left with...4 unhappiness, just from a different source. Get rid of that 4 unhappiness and I have... still 4 unhappiness. Only after resolving two more unhappiness, will there be any functional change. And that's assuming the population stayed constant. What looks like a manageable 4 right now will increase with every new citizen until I deal with it, with no obvious reason. I would think I'd be allowed to grow as long as each new citizen is contributing to the yields. But there's 9 unhappiness lurking, waiting for each new citizen to be born into a world of pain and sorrow.

    I understand the mechanics, and I'm not complaining about them. But from the player's point of view, these numbers are not helpful for making decisions. A need popping up out of nowhere because I fixed a different one, unhappiness remaining constant despite seemingly fixing issues--it's hard to feel like you're in control of your happiness. And I know that was a major driving force behind the recent change.
     
  18. ryanmusante

    ryanmusante Regular Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    965
    Gender:
    Male
    B E A Utiful
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
  19. Rekk

    Rekk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    958
    No matter what proportion the unhappiness is, the fact remains that the player has 13 unhappiness to fix before the city content. It doesn't really matter what yields/needs building in this situation, and the new proposed "potential unhappiness" hammers that in. Even without that, you could always see that science yields are 1/pop, but requires 6.
     
  20. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,369
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    It's a fulfillment of the hierarchy of needs, though - if you think about it in the long-term, people rise from starvation to distress, from distress to poverty, and each step demand more and more.

    G
     
    Skidizzle, civplayer33 and glider1 like this.

Share This Page