What exactly is discontent?

Ita Bear

Warlord
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
284
Hello folks,

I love how in Old World most mechanics seem to translate well to a (relatively) realistic empire-building experience. I improve my cities' infrastructure through projects. I invest in my industries via specialists, who reward me with improved yields. I supply my cities with cattle, fish and crops and they grow faster. I gift my cities to vassal families so that we can grow a (hopefully) mutually beneficial relationship.

Discontent though is the odd factor out here. I simply don't understand what it's modeled after and I don't think it's a realistic representation of unhappiness in cities. In Old World, every city is a ticking time bomb that, given enough time, will revolt due to anger. No matter how much food a city has or how many specialists it provides or how well protected it is, the city will grow unhappier. We can slow the process, but as of yet I haven't found a way to stop it. This means that the city is guaranteed to revolt and become furious eventually.

I understand the gameplay implication; cities should be well managed so that their benefits outweigh the steadily increasing penalties through discontent. It just seems like one of the few mechanics in OW that is punishment for punishment's sake and I'm curious what the inspiration or thinking behind the mechanic is.

What are your thoughts on the discontent mechanic?

Kind regards,
Ita Bear
 
Late game, you can get cities to be producing negative discontent per turn, so they're technically always getting happier.

If we're translating constant discontent into real world mechanics, I guess I always viewed it as "don't get complacent"! We live in an ever changing world, and our citizens want things to keep on changing with it. Combined with that pesky free press retelling all your mistakes, jealous rivals spreading slander, enemies fomenting discontent, there's always some process (internal or external, micro or macro) exerting negative influence on your people. And it's your job to keep it in check.
 
Late game, you can get cities to be producing negative discontent per turn, so they're technically always getting happier.
Yeah and in the meantime you should constantly use pacify city if reducing discontent is important for you.
Given how big a penalty it was in Civ IV, I used to put reducing discontent as one of my highest priorities. But in OW you can live with some discontent without noticing it too much.
 
Hello folks,

What are your thoughts on the discontent mechanic?

Ita Bear

My take is that the activities of everyday life produce "friction" with our environment and with each other that leads to injuries and illness, losses (material and immaterial), frustration, and anger that if not addressed increase discontent with one's situation over time. Luxuries, religion, public hygiene and recreation (e.g. baths), security (family unit in city with walls) and other things that reduce discontent in-game are ways of either reducing these or making them more tolerable.
 
You folks are right about it!

Discontent isn't unhappiness from Civ. It's not people actively hating you. It's just the people's demands gradually growing, as the citizens of a small farming settlement expect less than the citizens of a large empire. Once their basic needs for food and shelter are comfortably met, people will start looking for better security from outside threats, entertainment, finer food or clothes, spiritual needs, etc. So the people demand more of those who run their cities, which in turn places demands on you as the ruler to deal with the needs of those nobles and statesmen.

And in gameplay terms, trying to minimize discontent is probably one of the main two mistakes Civ players make when new to OW (the other being building too few units). Discontent is fine. You don't need to spend a lot of effort to prevent it going up. Level 3 discontent sounds horrible to Civ players but it's a baseline that cities will reach and that is completely fine. By the time you get the tools to actually lower discontent, your major cities are probably going to be at levels 5-7 and that's okay. Having bad family relations is a problem. Having high discontent in cities isn't as long as the family is happy.
 
You folks are right about it!

Discontent isn't unhappiness from Civ. It's not people actively hating you. It's just the people's demands gradually growing... And in gameplay terms, trying to minimize discontent is probably one of the main two mistakes Civ players make when new to OW

In that case wouldn´t it be better to replace the word "Discontent" per example by the word "Expectations" (or something like that) ?
 
The game needs a word that clearly suggests the basics of what a yield is. Discontent isn't a perfect name (we've had some internal discussions about that!) but it clearly suggests that it's a bad thing. More discontent is bad, reducing discontent is good. A name like Expectations wouldn't be as clear, is it good to have high Expectations or not? Discontent is a name that works reasonably well to give players the right idea - same with Maintenance, the other negative yield in the game.

It used to be called Decadence at one point, not sure if that was any better.
 
I thought decadence was a really bad name. It implies cultural decline, at the same time as a separate culture metre was filling up. Didn't make sense IMO.
 
I thought decadence was a really bad name. It implies cultural decline, at the same time as a separate culture metre was filling up. Didn't make sense IMO.

Here's the OED definition of decadence:
"The process of falling away or declining (from a prior state of excellence, vitality, prosperity, etc.); decay; impaired or deteriorated condition."

I agree, it doesn't really fit as a name when there is a continuous rising culture yield, as you say. It might be clearer if "discontent" is described as a measure of unmet needs, as described above, which has the effect of increasing the population's discontent with their circumstances in general, rather than directed at the leader specifically, and which then impacts productivity.
 
Last edited:
Interesting insights.

Rebelliousness comes to my mind.
- Unfortunately, it seems a bit clunky of a word.
- Compared to discontent describing the source, rebelliousness rather describes the state and effect.

Personal pro/con:
- Pro: Seems more intuitive to most game implications. Evokes less immediate concern at low levels (for my brain disconent is rather yes/no).
- Con: Clunky, Less "narrative"
 
it seems to fall more into the hierarchy of needs in a way, ie, the bigger and more complex your city, the greater and more diverse are its needs.

yet, why is that a festival is the only thing that helps that? that seems to go back to discontent in a way
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiR
Why not rename it to happiness and start at a higher value and have it become lower when the city grows? Players wouldn't worry too much at decreasing happyness levels, whereas they do with increasing discontent levels (while basically the same thing is happening, but from a different perspective).
 
The first time I saw the word "discontent" in gameplay videos, my mind immediately went with "Now is the winter of our discontent"......

As a result, this mechanic always reads "social instability caused by city overpopulation and lacking public services" to me.
 
Why not rename it to happiness and start at a higher value and have it become lower when the city grows? Players wouldn't worry too much at decreasing happyness levels, whereas they do with increasing discontent levels (while basically the same thing is happening, but from a different perspective).
iirc it USED to go negative, but it read confusingly, to me anyway and maybe to others b/c they changed it, as the bars above and below it were positive.

i think 8houses has the right of it; that really clicked with me when i just read it.

and speaking as someone who just dealt w/ butt loads of it, i'd like more ways to reduce it
 
It's a rise and fall mechanic, and the way it's implemented more reflect overextension and lack of attention to regional politics than "are you happy". Like, things historically tended to break apart, and you need to manage that somehow, whether you do this by appeasing the people running the cities or appeasing the people themselves.
 
Top Bottom