markusbeutel
NiGHTS
Happiness System
Spoiler :
NiGHTS: Happiness/Unhappiness
- Thread starter markusbeutel
- Start date
Observations.
(version 9.8b, Difficulty = Prince)
The other civilizations expand very quickly like they did in Civ III. In order to keep up I had to expand quickly as well. This brought massive unhappiness. I have a small army which I cannot now add to because it would only deepen the unhappiness. Thus I am a sitting duck.
Now, when I research a new tech, I look only for techs that will increase happiness or lead to techs that will. When I build a new building I look only for buildings that will add to happiness. When I select a new social policy, I look only for those that will bring happiness. When I have the opportunity to build a wonder I look only at those that will boost happiness.
It seems you have take a multi-dimensional, empire building game and turned it into a one-dimensional game that is entirely focused on avoiding unhappiness. Having to play this way is tedious and uninteresting.
You might want to re-think the whole happiness concept. Either tone it down so that it is not a factor at all or, better yet, if possible, delete the entire mechanism of happiness from the game. Why do we need it?
(version 9.8b, Difficulty = Prince)
The other civilizations expand very quickly like they did in Civ III. In order to keep up I had to expand quickly as well. This brought massive unhappiness. I have a small army which I cannot now add to because it would only deepen the unhappiness. Thus I am a sitting duck.
Now, when I research a new tech, I look only for techs that will increase happiness or lead to techs that will. When I build a new building I look only for buildings that will add to happiness. When I select a new social policy, I look only for those that will bring happiness. When I have the opportunity to build a wonder I look only at those that will boost happiness.
It seems you have take a multi-dimensional, empire building game and turned it into a one-dimensional game that is entirely focused on avoiding unhappiness. Having to play this way is tedious and uninteresting.
You might want to re-think the whole happiness concept. Either tone it down so that it is not a factor at all or, better yet, if possible, delete the entire mechanism of happiness from the game. Why do we need it?
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
It can be quite difficult if you're new to the mod - and especially if you're accustomed to the pace of the game found in CIV V which is generally a lot slower than in past CIV games. By taking a good mix of Policies and building Cities close to luxury resources, (while focusing on improving the terrain) - it's quite possible to keep up with the AI, especially on Prince. I usually have around 5-7 Cities up within the first 100 turns of the game - which is usually the pace of the AI.
Trading with the AI is another option that's more viable in this mod, as diplomacy has been revamped so that the AI behaves in a less volatile manner compared to the vanilla game - that, and they value luxuries a lot more and will generally offer/accept fair trades. Happiness buildings in this mod should be seen as more of a stop-gap mechanism for happiness rather than an every-game essential. It's quite possible to avoid building them altogether if you prioritize food and time your expansion properly.
Having said that, sometimes certain mods just don't click with certain people's play-styles, especially in a game that offers as many as the CIV series.
EDIT: The AI's rate of expansion is not as high on lower difficulty levels so this might be another route to take as you get accustomed to the new mechanics.
EDIT2: Also, maybe try one of the Charismatic Civ's if you're still struggling with Happiness levels, as they currently get a boost to Citizen Happiness which can make a huge difference. Early on, granaries are also very important with how they carry over food after growth.
Wow, someone here is big-headed. I think the new happiness mechanic markus has introduced here is actually great and adds a lot to the game. If you like the "multi-dimensional" game of civ 5 so much why don't you just play it without any mods enabled? Just wanted to let you know you come across as a bit of a douche from that post you wrote.
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
Alright guys lets not derail this thread. Whether you like or dislike any particular aspect of this or any other mod, if you can voice/post your thoughts in a manner that's respectible of others and their opinions, regardless of how different they are from your own - then everyone will benefit - so please, no more direct attacks.
Then I can stop pretending to be a mod and get back to improving the actual
mod.
Then I can stop pretending to be a mod and get back to improving the actual
mod.
I just read your explanation-thread about happyness and it seems to work well from a game-mechanics point of view. But I'm unsure if I understand the logic behind it. Please explain it to me, ok? I'll add an example.
Lets say we have 20 points of population. If we have a huuuge continent just for ourselfs and spread them over 20 citys, we have 380 unhappyness, right?
20 * (20-1) = 380
If we sit on a tiny overpopulated island and press all these 20 pop-points into one city, we get zero unhappyness, correct?
1 * (20-20) = 0
I realy dont want to annoy anyone, but I need some way to imagine how my civilization works/feels. I dont understand how overpopulation is the key to ultimate happyness.
Dont get me wrong, the idea may work perfectly, but where is its link to reality?
Lets say we have 20 points of population. If we have a huuuge continent just for ourselfs and spread them over 20 citys, we have 380 unhappyness, right?
20 * (20-1) = 380
If we sit on a tiny overpopulated island and press all these 20 pop-points into one city, we get zero unhappyness, correct?
1 * (20-20) = 0
I realy dont want to annoy anyone, but I need some way to imagine how my civilization works/feels. I dont understand how overpopulation is the key to ultimate happyness.
Dont get me wrong, the idea may work perfectly, but where is its link to reality?
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
Each Citizen in every City generates +1 Happiness, (up to a cap of (10) in each City), since the last update. Think of population as a means of providing your empire with enough troops to support your army.
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
It's a mechanic to stop ICS, similar to how expanding all over the place in CIV IV increased the strain on your economy. As you build up a City in NiGHTS, (via population), you make each of these new Cities profitable, in a sense - in that you now have the requisite Happiness required to fund additional Cities.
Well, first: I dont know the term ICS, is it some sort of train?
Second: I *KNOW* that its a game mechanic and I allready said I believe it might work well. But thats not my question. My question is: Why do you penalize low population density and promote overpopulation?
From a production/cash point of view, sure, but happyness? Everyone hates filled subways, waiting in line, small houses, polluted air and the lack of landscape.
Second: I *KNOW* that its a game mechanic and I allready said I believe it might work well. But thats not my question. My question is: Why do you penalize low population density and promote overpopulation?
From a production/cash point of view, sure, but happyness? Everyone hates filled subways, waiting in line, small houses, polluted air and the lack of landscape.
markusbeutel
NiGHTS
ICS stands for infinite city sprawl - where there are limited/no penalties for overexpanding.
As for why this mechanic penalizes low population density and promotes overpopulation - I guess my only response would be that this is Civ, a grand empire simulation strategy game. It's not about limiting yourself to a low number of cities - and CIV V is the first game in the series that really attempted to push this style of gameplay with penalties to policy costs for overexpansion. The only problem is - that this doesn't represent any sort of solution. Larger empires will always win in vanilla CIV V - as a domination win is by far the most direct route to victory.
While NiGHTS may not deviate from that path, (it can't with the state the tactical AI is in), it does offer you many more options and meaningful choices to make along the way. In the end, an ICS strategy is harder to pull off in NiGHTS, (especially in the early portion of the game), and this, at the very least, represents some progress from the base vanilla gameplay.
but I have to post again. I am realy unsure why you dont offer an answer to my question. You allways talk about gamemechanics, but that has no connection to my question.
You seem unable to understand, that Civ is not only about gamemechanics. Not everything that successfully forces a player to play the way the designers want him to play is a good thing.
Civ trys to resemble human history, at least to a given degree. Thats why some things that might be fun are not in (aliens, laser-sssassins, mages...) and why all the things that are in the game, do what seems logically for them to do.
Lets say, the designers wanted to have Plutonium as a new rescource (whatever). And lets say they wanted to add a building called 'greenhouse' cause they feel like it was missing. The easiest way would be to say 'Greenhouses make Plutonium'. This adds the wanted building to the game as well as the rescource. It works like a charm, from a gamemechanics point of view. But it breaks the illusion, because it makes no sense.
Now, and I promise I wont ask again, please tell me:
Why do you think that overpopulation makes humans happy? Why do they prefer crowded citys over beautifull villages? Real humans, not your mod. Get away from the mechanics you've designed and ask yourself: Does my solution for 'the happyness problem' resemble reality? Or is it massively flawed and ruins the illusion of the whole game?
You seem unable to understand, that Civ is not only about gamemechanics. Not everything that successfully forces a player to play the way the designers want him to play is a good thing.
Civ trys to resemble human history, at least to a given degree. Thats why some things that might be fun are not in (aliens, laser-sssassins, mages...) and why all the things that are in the game, do what seems logically for them to do.
Lets say, the designers wanted to have Plutonium as a new rescource (whatever). And lets say they wanted to add a building called 'greenhouse' cause they feel like it was missing. The easiest way would be to say 'Greenhouses make Plutonium'. This adds the wanted building to the game as well as the rescource. It works like a charm, from a gamemechanics point of view. But it breaks the illusion, because it makes no sense.
Now, and I promise I wont ask again, please tell me:
Why do you think that overpopulation makes humans happy? Why do they prefer crowded citys over beautifull villages? Real humans, not your mod. Get away from the mechanics you've designed and ask yourself: Does my solution for 'the happyness problem' resemble reality? Or is it massively flawed and ruins the illusion of the whole game?
BSPollux I see your point. Firaxis has never gotten the happiness/unhappiness mechanic right and Markus is doing the best he can with a broken mechanic.
The game would probably be more "realistic" and more interesting to play if instead of the happiness/unhappiness mechanic it was replaced with something like resource limits. Of course that would be more complicated to implement but maybe someday when Firaxis gets around to releasing the code some modder will do just that.
The game would probably be more "realistic" and more interesting to play if instead of the happiness/unhappiness mechanic it was replaced with something like resource limits. Of course that would be more complicated to implement but maybe someday when Firaxis gets around to releasing the code some modder will do just that.
Errrr the game was more realistic in the orininal way, when overpopulation (more people in a city) caused unhappyness instead of solving it.
In this version, the following scenario makes sense: Theres a huge apartment block. The flats a tiny and people hate theire lives there. Now you stuff in another family into each flat and -voila- the people are happy!
I understand that he wants to link the armylimit to population, but this just isnt the way, its just unrealistic.
In this version, the following scenario makes sense: Theres a huge apartment block. The flats a tiny and people hate theire lives there. Now you stuff in another family into each flat and -voila- the people are happy!
I understand that he wants to link the armylimit to population, but this just isnt the way, its just unrealistic.
Large cities increasing happiness does make sense too. Citys like New York City inspire happiness in people for many reason, including outsiders. I live close enough to NYC to say that it makes me happy to visit there.
The same can be said for other large cities I assure you, simple because there are some areas in cities that people may not like doesn't mean that everyone hates cities which to me actually seems like a broad generalization on your part.
It makes perfect sense to me that large cities = happy people. If you look at improvements like "Trade Posts" they look like suburbs at later stages of the game..that to me signifies smaller towns surrounding a city.
EDIT: To use your analogy, this version it could be like this...
There's a huge apartment block and people hate their lives there. Suddenly the city expands and makes a district for middle class people, it features nice apartments at a reasonable price and has access to all the latest entertainment and amenities thus making those families really happy to be there...oh did I mention they are within walking distance from a nice pub that just opened up (not to mention a shopping district)
The same can be said for other large cities I assure you, simple because there are some areas in cities that people may not like doesn't mean that everyone hates cities which to me actually seems like a broad generalization on your part.
It makes perfect sense to me that large cities = happy people. If you look at improvements like "Trade Posts" they look like suburbs at later stages of the game..that to me signifies smaller towns surrounding a city.
EDIT: To use your analogy, this version it could be like this...
There's a huge apartment block and people hate their lives there. Suddenly the city expands and makes a district for middle class people, it features nice apartments at a reasonable price and has access to all the latest entertainment and amenities thus making those families really happy to be there...oh did I mention they are within walking distance from a nice pub that just opened up (not to mention a shopping district)
A nice reply Zohar, I appreciate that you tried to see my point.
there is one small problem with what you say: The benefits of larger citys that you named (entertainment, culture etc) are allready covered in Civ5 via buildings that creeate happyness. And that makes perfect sense, doesnt it?
Back to the analogy: If the cinema is too crowded for you to ever get a seat, do you like it?
there is one small problem with what you say: The benefits of larger citys that you named (entertainment, culture etc) are allready covered in Civ5 via buildings that creeate happyness. And that makes perfect sense, doesnt it?
Back to the analogy: If the cinema is too crowded for you to ever get a seat, do you like it?
I think you ignore the fact that some people love populous cities, if anything you fail to see the other side of the coin. I'm not saying your point is invalid (it's more of an opinion, like mine is), and that some people don't feel the way you describe, but you are ignoring several things about cities that make them so popular.
They are popular for many reasons including:
My point about those buildings is certainly not invalid, being able to frequent them without being a tourist is an even bigger attraction though I accept that you have a right to disagree.
Throughout history, particularly early history, cities especially big ones had an appeal (despite diseases before plumbing) because it was so much harder to get goods / services in small towns and villages.
They are popular for many reasons including:
- Jobs are usually easier to find (+hapiness)
- Usually has some form of infastructure including public transportation
- Easier to meet new people since there are so many
- Easier access to goods and services since they are all contained in a city
- Easier access to travel such as ports / airports
My point about those buildings is certainly not invalid, being able to frequent them without being a tourist is an even bigger attraction though I accept that you have a right to disagree.
Throughout history, particularly early history, cities especially big ones had an appeal (despite diseases before plumbing) because it was so much harder to get goods / services in small towns and villages.
Similar threads
