chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
I meant counter-intuitive gameplay wise.
New Version - May 19th (5-19)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 5-19 vox populi
- Status
tu_79
Deity
This sounds strange, to say the least. Not that you are wrong, but how can it be?
Remembering how the distress is computed.
Distress = (FoodCityEfficiency - WorldMedianFoodEfficiency) * EmpireSizePenalty * CitySizePenalty * TechPenalty * DistressDiscounts
What I mean is that, if the base for all those calculations is a simple substraction, then what these values actually are still matters. Or it should.
The happiness provided by buildings in Fealty is only available for those buildings if you take Fealty. Unhappiness reduction for urbanization from guilds is available to everyone. Those are not the same thing, thus the latter is not an intrinsic bonus to artistry. As you note, "you dont need heavy investment, cause everyone is working culture specialists anyway," thus everyone, artistry and fealty users alike, are getting those bonuses.
He's likely referring to older versions in which you could achieve super high values when going super wide. I rarely see them above 150% for the AI. Bite has an unfortunate habit of not letting past (resolved) issues get in the way of a good argument in the here and now.
G
BiteInTheMark
Deity
No, Iam not speaking about "older" versions with "super wide" play. I speak about a 6 city ottoman game, where I reached +250% needs (350% in total) in my capital (in industrial age).
I also speak about a super normal game directly in this version, with a super normal 9 city Carthago empire.
Those are 3 of my core cities in the early/mid industrial age. They are relative small in comparison to my cities I have the most time in that stage of the game, but they have still a need for 290% of the median. Everyone except 1 (I think its a rounding error or something else) is unhappy, but the caps for each category and the need reduction buildings are lowering the unhappiness to an acceptable value:
Only the capital may successfully battle the median, but every normal city is unhappy. Completly. Every citizen.
Last edited:
I agree your mechanic is fine flavor wise, I dont have any issues rationalizing it. I just don’t like it from a gameplay standpoint.
Bite, two of the cities in your example are happy, and for each of them the unhappiness is lower than the maximum. I’m not sure what the problem is.
Distress exists as it does now because we got rid of Crime, which was an even worse unhappiness need based on city CS. And since it had to get replaced and production/food weren't a part of it, they took over.
Also yeah, Bite that looks entirely normal.
Also yeah, Bite that looks entirely normal.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
Only because he has unhappiness reduction and/or hit the needs unhappiness cap. Otherwise, his deficits are equivalent to his population (minus 1). In his situation, there is zero point in him trying to meet any needs.
If this is the standard situation, what exactly is the point of the needs system if the result is essentially 1 unhappiness per population, which is then alieviated by unhappiness reduction and happiness?
Last edited:
I also don't know what he wants. If he wants that it is normal that all his cities are happy, then happiness lost its meaning. He could just disable happiness with reallyadvancedsetup.
If his cities were happy even when he has not build all need reduction buildings or some public works and only has few luxury ressources, these need reduction buildings or public works or ressources or whatever would be useless in this aspect.
No, Iam not speaking about "older" versions with "super wide" play. I speak about a 6 city ottoman game, where I reached +250% needs (350% in total) in my capital (in industrial age).
I also speak about a super normal game directly in this version, with a super normal 9 city Carthago empire.
Those are 3 of my core cities in the early/mid industrial age. They are relative small in comparison to my cities I have the most time in that stage of the game, but they have still a need for 290% of the median. Everyone except 1 (I think its a rounding error or something else) is unhappy, but the caps for each category and the need reduction buildings are lowering the unhappiness to an acceptable value:
Only the capital may successfully battle the median, but every normal city is unhappy. Completly. Every citizen.
20 - 8 != 0
19 - 10 != 0
19 - 7 != 0
180% modifier is about right for cities of that size and at that point in the game. As I said, modifiers for the AI usually don't go above 150, but some hover around 200% mid/late game.
G
Ah ok, so your saying that ultimately the yields the city is producing is completely irrelevant, the only control over unhappiness is the buildings that directly reduce unhappiness.
In other words, its not:
Distress = Food/Production
Illiteracy = Science
Boredom = Culture
Poverty = Gold
Its actually
Distress = Production
Illiteracy = Production
Boredom = Production
Poverty = Production
That is a decent argument, I'd need more examples to confirm if that is always a problem but I now understand the concern.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
He's essentially hit the needs cap in every city. His deficits are large enough that yields don't matter for alleviating needs, just buildings.
The exact percentage doesn't matter if it results in the maximum unhappiness possible from needs regardless.
That's not accurate. He's at/near the point where he'd start having city-level penalties, but he's still less than half the unhappiness cap per city.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
He's not at the unhappiness cap. He's at the unhappiness from needs cap, hence why he has large deficits. He's no longer interacting with needs through yields.
tu_79
Deity
Right, so it invalidates my argument
But he's not, since his city isn't 100% unhappy. You could argue that there isn't enough floating happiness in cities (and thus he can't run many specialists), but that's intentional. IF we feel that there should be more 'floating happiness' to give cities a wider divide between happy and unhappy, we can consider it, but the current system is functioning as intended and is far, far less harsh than it used to be.
G
I'm asking for an explanation. In terms of design what is distress supposed to do? This question sounds condescending because frankly I've asked it nicely like 20 times and you haven't answered. I'm not asking you to change anything in the mod, I assume there is something I'm missing because I cannot make sense of the feature at all.
I actually agree with @BiteInTheMark, which I don't believe has happened before. There is a ton of math going on for your happiness yields, its super complex, its not easy to understand, but it doesn't actually create much depth or meaningful gameplay choices. By the late game, you can't actually reduce illiteracy by producing science, only the science needs modifier.
A 20 population city will regularly have 0 unhappiness. My 25 pop city has 4-5 unhappiness. My 30 pop city has 8-10. This scaling is so punishing to growth, and punihsing to wide with low growth at all not settling extra cities. Right now you could have 10,000 cities and stay at 100% happiness. That 20 pop city probably can work more specialists too, which is making food so bad.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
Then I must not understand something. What is the deficit for each need mean?
I just wished City Happiness were allowed to be 150% of Total Citizens just so events can use the happiness boost.
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
The Celtic Pantheon Lugh and Babylon's early Walls are also a lot harder to use now, I would assume? Are we going to make those Specialists free?
- Status
