New Version - June 21st (6/21)

[Strigvir]

But you didn't discuss it either. You just played with numbers and called it the day. There is still 60%+ yields difference between the worst and the best case, the curve doesn't matter because in latest version happiness sways like mad. I had +30 on one turn and -24 on the next one because someone declared a war on me. After going from -24 to +11 by deassigning specialists I've gotten +50 on the next turn, which then dropped to +30 on the turn after it.
Wide empires have to deal with a lot of problems, don't need to resort to some hidden modifiers to make it "harder".

 

[Funak]

There is still 60%+ yields difference between the worst and the best case

You're pretty much just making numbers up at this point aren't you?

 

[TeeInKay]

Yeah when you have more than 20 cities changing assignments every turn to maintain happiness is a thing.

 

[Strigvir]

You're pretty much just making numbers up at this point aren't you?

Ignoring posts altogether at this point, aren't you?
If 115 isn't 64% more than 70, I guess you follow some alternative mathematics.

 

[Funak]

Ignoring posts altogether at this point, aren't you?
If 115 isn't 64% more than 70, I guess you follow some alternative mathematics.

Calculate percentage difference
between V1 = 70 and V2 = 115

( | V1 - V2 | / ((V1 + V2)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 70 - 115 | / ((70 + 115)/2) ) * 100
= ( | -45 | / (185/2) ) * 100
= ( 45 / 92.5 ) * 100
= 0.486486 * 100

= 48.6486% difference

 

[WileyNg]

Stop fighting like two children.
Make love, not war.

 

[Funak]

Stop fighting like two children.
Make love, not war.

Yeah I'm sorry, abused numbers just hurts my eyes.

 

[Delekhan]

Actually Strigvir is right Funak.

70 * 1.64 = 115 (114.8 rounded up)

He was talking about a 64% increase over 70, not the factored percentage interval of the two numbers.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Funak]

Actually Strigvir is right Funak.

70 * 1.64 = 115 (114.8 rounded up)

He was talking about a 64% increase over 70, not the factored percentage interval of the two numbers.

Here endeth the lesson.

Except he said

There is still 60%+ yields difference between the worst and the best case

Otherwise your explanation would have been perfect.

 

[NeyNey]

This is not really a bug per say I think, so I put it in here.
If you choose order as an Idiology, and choose free Museums, you actually get free Public Schools instead, is this a text issue, or simply a wrong building put in the code? Or something third?

 

[Delekhan]

Originally Posted by Strigvir View Post
Ignoring posts altogether at this point, aren't you?
If 115 isn't 64% more than 70, I guess you follow some alternative mathematics.

Calculate percentage difference
between V1 = 70 and V2 = 115

( | V1 - V2 | / ((V1 + V2)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 70 - 115 | / ((70 + 115)/2) ) * 100
= ( | -45 | / (185/2) ) * 100
= ( 45 / 92.5 ) * 100
= 0.486486 * 100

= 48.6486% difference

I hate to continue this childish exchange, but consider it a spot of payback for all the times you badgered other users on here

See above: You were correcting him for 115 not being 64% over 70. Kind of makes his point about ignoring his posts before commenting on them

Moral: be nice to people.

 

[Funak]

I hate to continue this childish exchange, but consider it a spot of payback for all the times you badgered other users on here

See above: You were correcting him for 115 not being 64% over 70.

Moral: be nice to people.

Yeah, but that's just because he changed what he said between the post to make me look bad What he originally said was difference, and that was wrong


Anyways, whatever, let's drop this. We've already been told of by Gazebo and pretty much everyone else here already

 

[Delekhan]

By the way to respond to Strigvir's original point about happiness:

I have not run into this problem at all. Happiness has rarely been a serious problem in my games after Renaissance, I think it's still too easy to maintain positive happiness, especially if you go Piety and grab two faith-buy buildings for your religion. The city governors are also a lot better about assigning specialists, though they still hobble growth at times when it's really needed. They value 3 science, 3 culture, 1 faith, and 3 GPP from scientists more than that farm with 5 food, even if the city is barely growing and only at 9 population.

I'm thinking that while the city is still at low population (think below 15), governors should give more weight to food such that the city is growing at a reasonable rate, unless a certain resource focus is selected.

 

[Funak]

I have not run into this problem at all. Happiness has rarely been a serious problem in my games after Renaissance, I think it's still too easy to maintain positive happiness, especially if you go Piety and grab two faith-buy buildings for your religion.

That is the easiest happiness solution, that's for sure. But you're giving up a lot by doing so. I find the other beliefs generally more powerful than the buildings, and I find that grabbing Aesthetics, gives you more than benefit than Piety in the long run. Even if you have to wait for Opera-houses and Museums to make up for the happiness you get from Piety. However there is a certain problem with the faith-buy buildings piety synergy and that is that the faith-buy buildings are generally weak without Piety, and Piety is weak without faith-buy buildings. No real idea how to solve that however.
All in all it adds a layer of choices, which is probably the intention in the first place.

They value 3 science, 3 culture, 1 faith, and 3 GPP from scientists more than that farm with 5 food, even if the city is barely growing and only at 9 population.

I'm thinking that while the city is still at low population (think below 15), governors should give more weight to food such that the city is growing at a reasonable rate, unless a certain resource focus is selected.

I've noticed this as well, the new specialists are so powerful that the governor usually always use them. Then again I'm not exactly sure this is actually a problem. I mean it's not like the city starves or work tiles with bad yields instead of food.
Sure it might not grow too fast, but that's something that can be solved either by sending an internal trade-route with food or by manually controlling it.
However like you said, maybe the governor should value food just a tiny bit more.

 

[Delekhan]

I like how the system has turned out though. I feel there's actually a real payoff to managing citizens now. Before you could get away with letting the governor manage citizens on most cities, even at higher difficulty levels. Now it's more fun to manage citizens.

However I do believe the governors should value surplus on a logarithmic curve. As it is, each unit of surplus makes a far bigger difference to a size 7 city than to a size 20 city.

Therefore when a city is smaller, it'd be smarter for the governor to give more weight to each , and then taper off its value with each citizen that is born because - to use an economics term - the marginal utility of each extra surplus declines the more population there is.

For example, when a city is population 24, I really don't care whether the +18 surplus becomes +19 . On the other hand, for a size 7 city, an increase of +4 to +5 makes a real difference.

 

[Funak]

For example, when a city is population 24, I really don't care whether the +18 surplus becomes +19 . On the other hand, for a size 7 city, an increase of +4 to +5 makes a real difference.

Well one of those is a 25% increase and the other is a 6% increase

On a more serious note, I doubt the script allows for logarithmic curves when it comes to governing but I still believe the governor should value 5 food over 3 science 3 culture and 1 faith. The real problem with valuing food is that it is by far the best yield for as long as you want to keep focusing on growing, however after that you'd rather have the city stagnating than growing every 100ish turns. There probably isn't a simple way to design that however.

 

[Gazebo]

Seriously, stop fighting over the numbers, guys. We're still experimenting with ideas and systems right now, so no need to crusade for or against anything at this time.

I like how the system has turned out though. I feel there's actually a real payoff to managing citizens now. Before you could get away with letting the governor manage citizens on most cities, even at higher difficulty levels. Now it's more fun to manage citizens.

However I do believe the governors should value surplus on a logarithmic curve. As it is, each unit of surplus makes a far bigger difference to a size 7 city than to a size 20 city.

Therefore when a city is smaller, it'd be smarter for the governor to give more weight to each , and then taper off its value with each citizen that is born because - to use an economics term - the marginal utility of each extra surplus declines the more population there is.

For example, when a city is population 24, I really don't care whether the +18 surplus becomes +19 . On the other hand, for a size 7 city, an increase of +4 to +5 makes a real difference.

Something like this shouldn't be too hard, actually - my current system is (ahem) crude. I'll use the amount of food needed to grow to the next level as the topnumber, and the bottom number as the food produced, so:

10 produced and 50 needed to grow = 5x value
60 produced and 200 needed to grow = 3x value

etc.

Is this what you had in mind?
G

 

[Funak]

Seriously, stop fighting over the numbers, guys. We're still experimenting with ideas and systems right now, so no need to crusade for or against anything at this time.

But math is serious business

Something like this shouldn't be too hard, actually - my current system is (ahem) crude. I'll use the amount of food needed to grow to the next level as the topnumber, and the bottom number as the food produced, so:

Guess I was mistaken in that case Is there anything you can't do? Just curious.

10 produced and 50 needed to grow = 5x value
60 produced and 200 needed to grow = 3x value

etc.

Is this what you had in mind?

Looks pretty solid to me.

 

[Strigvir]

Except he said
between the worst and the best case

Reading is hard, right? Aka the difference between 115 and 70.

I have not run into this problem at all. Happiness has rarely been a serious problem in my games after Renaissance, I think it's still too easy to maintain positive happiness, especially if you go Piety and grab two faith-buy buildings for your religion. The city governors are also a lot better about assigning specialists, though they still hobble growth at times when it's really needed. They value 3 science, 3 culture, 1 faith, and 3 GPP from scientists more than that farm with 5 food, even if the city is barely growing and only at 9 population.

But did you play the newest version?
Because in my latest game there sure were problems with it for everyone:
http://s2.postimg.org/7d0ksjjk7/8930_2015_06_25_00010.png
The best part is when I got -100 happiness, rebels IMMEDIATELY spawned right beside my cities. And did that:
http://s2.postimg.org/4wyrep1hj/8930_2015_06_25_00007.png
http://s2.postimg.org/ndt65ihfr/8930_2015_06_25_00008.png
http://s2.postimg.org/hea0flm13/8930_2015_06_25_00009.png
So not only you get -64% yields, you are also get huge chunks of them stolen by barbarians merely touching ANY city in your empire. Denying any chance to get further in tech and more policies.
Suffice to say that tall empires have easier times defending their small number of cities, so even -30 happiness isn't as fatal as for wide ones.

I like how the system has turned out though. I feel there's actually a real payoff to managing citizens now.

Except you have to micromanage every city almost every turn due to huge happiness swindles (and barbarians spawning from them). I guess it's pretty fun to micromanage 4 cities, but not so much 20+ of them.

Seriously, stop fighting over the numbers, guys. We're still experimenting with ideas and systems right now, so no need to crusade for or against anything at this time.

But that not just "numbers" it's a literal multiplier to EVERYTHING in the game.
Also I suspect there are rounding errors, because when I fiddled with the latest save in the bug thread, I could get different happiness results with the same specialists loadout.

 

[Jorad]

In my games, there is a shortage of cultural GP, which causes a shortage of literature and art.
Those specialists get buffed later than the others, which causes the city governors to neglect them.
Previously it seemed like there was a big bias in favor of those specialists and those slots were filled first almost always. Now they're rarely getting filled unless I manually assign them.
(Obviously causes the AI to produce barely any art to trade and also little tourism.)