What should the happiness system achieve? [POLL]

[tu_79]

I really like the way emissaries are limited by the amount of available paper. Standing emissaries are using that paper, so you can't hoard them. The amount of available paper can be increased, but it's costly. It does not prevent the player from focusing on diplomacy, but limits going too extreme with it.

If we think of happiness as the equivalent of paper, a currency that allows certain activities, then every activity that we don't want to see used too often, should be consuming happiness, the same way an emissary consumes paper, and release it once his job is done.

When paper is consumed, nothing bad happens. Only you cannot produce more diplo units until the paper is returned. Maybe we could ask the same to happiness. Instead of bad things happening in your empire due to your low happiness, just limit the things available for the player. I believe settlers can't be produced while unhappy already.

 

[Casworon]

I really like the way emissaries are limited by the amount of available paper. Standing emissaries are using that paper, so you can't hoard them. The amount of available paper can be increased, but it's costly. It does not prevent the player from focusing on diplomacy, but limits going too extreme with it.

If we think of happiness as the equivalent of paper, a currency that allows certain activities, then every activity that we don't want to see used too often, should be consuming happiness, the same way an emissary consumes paper, and release it once his job is done.

When paper is consumed, nothing bad happens. Only you cannot produce more diplo units until the paper is returned. Maybe we could ask the same to happiness. Instead of bad things happening in your empire due to your low happiness, just limit the things available for the player. I believe settlers can't be produced while unhappy already.

If happiness is supposed to be a limit on population growth and city expansion. Then making it that you cannot produce any more settlers and city growth stops when unhappy would achieve this. Also means you might be able to remove the production decrease, which means people actually have the hammers to improve their yields and get them out of unhappiness.

The problem is players can still invade other empires and capture more cities and more pops. How would this be stopped while unhappy? A unit strength debuff when outside friendly territory while unhappy might be a bit harsh. Maybe cities captured while unhappy are in a state of permanent anarchy, producing zero yields, until happiness problems are solved

 

[Asterix Rage]

I believe happiness system will never be satisfactory for everyone just because its purpose is to coerce.
I'm rather happy with the actual system I must say.
A few mods or tweaks for additional flat happinesses help me to deal (cheat) with highest difficulty levels.

the most important aspect of happiness which is the strategy of internal empire management.

so true

EDIT: of infernal empire management.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I really like the way emissaries are limited by the amount of available paper. Standing emissaries are using that paper, so you can't hoard them. The amount of available paper can be increased, but it's costly. It does not prevent the player from focusing on diplomacy, but limits going too extreme with it.

If we think of happiness as the equivalent of paper, a currency that allows certain activities, then every activity that we don't want to see used too often, should be consuming happiness, the same way an emissary consumes paper, and release it once his job is done.

When paper is consumed, nothing bad happens. Only you cannot produce more diplo units until the paper is returned. Maybe we could ask the same to happiness. Instead of bad things happening in your empire due to your low happiness, just limit the things available for the player. I believe settlers can't be produced while unhappy already.

Similar to that what Ilteroi suggest with stability.
Different sources generates tokens, upwards from zero tokens. Different tasks deplete that amount and if the amount is burned, you can't do some tasks anymore. Like, as long as you didn't are above the zero value, founding cities or birth of citizens is stopped.
If creating new citizens / founding cities / fight in war (tall/wide/warmonger) all costs the same currency (tokens/stability), it would be impossible to do everything at the same time.
I think such a system can be balanced much easier than the current system, cause everything can get a clear value and solely adjusted. I would prefer such a system, but would give strong penalties instead of full restriction, so you can decide if you want to accept temporarily disadvantages. Even PW could stay in the game, either as process which generates tokens/stability as long as you run the process to compensate temporarily bad situations, or as projects where all cities can contribute and is repitetive with increasing costs.

 

[Casworon]

I have to admit. This idea of a currency that you can then spend in different ways is an idea i am liking. It seems like if balanced well would achieve the same objective but would be more manageable and understandable.

Honestly though I think it should be a mod first. It`s obvious a lot of work has gone into the current happiness system, and i know personally, i wouldn't mind playing around with both for a bit before deciding which i prefer

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Hopefully everyone has noticed that multiple options are possible, cause the highest single purpose what the happiness system should try to achieve got only 67%.

I really wonder me over the result of the poll, cause only a bit more than half the people want a happiness system which limits expansion, and I thought that is the core purpose of the happiness system and everything else is mainly added by flavor.

Also interesting, that only every 4th think that the happiness system should have the need-mechanic. Which is the core of the current system!!!
And only every 5th think, happiness should be linked to growth and specialists.

The poll isn't over yet, but what do you guys think over the current result?

 

[tu_79]

Hopefully everyone has noticed that multiple options are possible, cause the highest single purpose what the happiness system should try to achieve got only 67%.

I really wonder me over the result of the poll, cause only a bit more than half the people want a happiness system which limits expansion, and I thought that is the core purpose of the happiness system and everything else is mainly added by flavor.

Also interesting, that only every 4th think that the happiness system should have the need-mechanic. Which is the core of the current system!!!
And only every 5th think, happiness should be linked to growth and specialists.

The poll isn't over yet, but what do you guys think over the current result?

I think you placed too many options and this has spread the results.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think you placed too many options and this has spread the results.

If you are in love with every aspect of the current system, you are able to vote for each aspect of the current system. There is no vote limit.
But even if we set 70% as maximum, cause it's close to the highest value, only every 3rd would think that the happiness system should care about your citizen effectiveness, aka the need-median-mechanic. I think that's pretty low for a mechanic which is now for so long such a dominant mechanic in the game.
Do you think too?

 

[Casworon]

Tbh I've kinda ignored the poll. There's so many options and I'm supposed to be studying. It was a bit intimidating. The discussion is interesting though. But I'm not sure how much you can read into its results

 

[JamesNinelives]

Hopefully everyone has noticed that multiple options are possible, cause the highest single purpose what the happiness system should try to achieve got only 67%.

I really wonder me over the result of the poll, cause only a bit more than half the people want a happiness system which limits expansion, and I thought that is the core purpose of the happiness system and everything else is mainly added by flavor.

Also interesting, that only every 4th think that the happiness system should have the need-mechanic. Which is the core of the current system!!!
And only every 5th think, happiness should be linked to growth and specialists.

The poll isn't over yet, but what do you guys think over the current result?

@BiteInTheMark I think you need to account for people not wanting to read all the of the options, and choosing the ones that are on their mind at the time instead of everything that they think applies.
@tu_79 is probably correct in that there are multiple questions being asked here rather than just one. People may responding to one part and ignore the other parts.

I like that we have some data at least. If 65% is the maximum that any option has achieved, I think it's reasonable to say that options which have at least 40% are important to a significant number of people. And that those which recieve less than 10% are less important. That would suggest that the 'core functions' are:
-> Slow down early expansion
-> Limit/slow down expansion of the empire in general
-> Reduce/Limit the ability to be at war (war weariness)
-> Limit the ability to conquer cities (in short time)
-> Force the construction of buildings/infrastructure

Functions that got 30-40% might be considered secondary functions:
-> Punish losing a war (pillage tiles/trade route)
-> Should harm cause of ideological pressure

Interestingly even the less popular options got around 20%. That suggests that at least some people are care about them, even if they are not as popular.
-> Reduce/limit growth of cities
-> Reduce/limit the ability to work specialists
-> Force effectiveness of citizens (needs)
-> Harm cause of religious diversity

I've left out the ones added later because they are going to have fewer votes by virtue of fewer people having seen them.

There's also some very interesting data in the two options you have put for 'should be more local' vs. 'should be more global'. Local got about 4 times as many votes as global. Not sure what to do with that information but it may be a starting point for further discussion. For example, I liked the point raised elsewhere about barbs spawning near the cities that are most unhappy rather than say the capital or a random city.

 

[looorg]

Do keep in mind that there are not a lot of votes in general, a single vote for anything is when I type this worth about 2% so for something to be 40% is just 20ish people while 50% is 25ish people. Few people voting for something can swing it so to speak, very noticeable at the later added options.

Then there is the multi-vote thing, one would guess and/or assume that people use the feature and they probably vote for similar things so that a group of similar options all get high votes might just be an indicator of them being grouped answers or connected that way.

That said if we just ignore frequency and look at percentages and not be bothered by the multiple votes at all grouping up the answers seem to indicate that people want a system that prevents eternal wars and to rapid expansion -- options with more then half the votes.

There's also some very interesting data in the two options you have put for 'should be more local' vs. 'should be more global'. Local got about 4 times as many votes as global. Not sure what to do with that information but it may be a starting point for further discussion. For example, I liked the point raised elsewhere about barbs spawning near the cities that are most unhappy rather than say the capital or a random city.

Local vs Global. Since local is 3-4 times larger then global. I guess people don't want an emphasis on global means and comparisons but instead local issues (I gather it's per city then or is local also here internal?) should be the core of your happiness. So local count for more and global issues count for less. That would be my current interpretation.

I guess the last part there is what does those barbarians spawning supposed to represent. Unhappy citizens taking up arms in rebellion? In which case would they raid and destroy their own town or would they take their grievances to the capital?

 

[JamesNinelives]

Unhappy citizens taking up arms in rebellion?

As you say, it depends on the interpretation. From my point of view, why would citizens take part in a rebellion if they know it's a suicide mission? Capitals are extremely difficult to capture, whereas smaller cities - particularly those who are underdeveloped - might have a chance at being captured.

 

[Legen]

why would citizens take part in a rebellion if they know it's a suicide mission?

Because their lives were made so miserable by their ruler that death is no longer a deterrent. And this rebellion isn't necessarily from peasants only, it could involve the nobles/elites in a conspiracy against the ruler, giving it less of a suicide aspect (for them).

I'd say the unhappiness system isn't fielding enough rebel units to pose an actual threat. Not that the players will want more punishment, but the threat so far is low.

 

[tu_79]

As you say, it depends on the interpretation. From my point of view, why would citizens take part in a rebellion if they know it's a suicide mission? Capitals are extremely difficult to capture, whereas smaller cities - particularly those who are underdeveloped - might have a chance at being captured.

Does it matter the reason? Thing is, rebellions occur, now and then. Most of them fated for doom. We don't need to ask why, but rather how.

 

[looorg]

As you say, it depends on the interpretation. From my point of view, why would citizens take part in a rebellion if they know it's a suicide mission? Capitals are extremely difficult to capture, whereas smaller cities - particularly those who are underdeveloped - might have a chance at being captured.

I'm trying to recall how this actually is in game, shouldn't be to hard since it is not that uncommon. But it's usually not a single city that is unhappy causing you to drop to those levels of unhappiness required for some form of uprising or rebellion to take place. It's usually quite a few city that are very unhappy. So where should they spawn? It might be natural that they try and go for the capital or some larger city (which all tend to be close to the capital) then trying to conquer some small, insignificant, city on the borderlands far far away. I guess this might also have something to do with that other thread that was on the forum recently about barbarians now being incapable (or almost incapable) of capturing a city. Instead they just go around being a little annoying and then in a turn or two they are wiped out. So there are just to few of them to actually pose any real threat and they show up at the wrong places etc. Perhaps there should be more of them, depending on how serious the uprising is. Most of the time now I think it's usually about 3-5 units or so? Perhaps it should be a % or perhaps they should spawn 3-5 units in more cities then one. I guess it all depends on how cruel one wants to be.

I guess one could go the path of the city-state quest that they just hang around some towns and if you don't wipe them out they'll flip the town to barbarianism. That said I have not seen that working lately for the city-state quests either so it's a very rare thing to observe these days.

 

[Asterix Rage]

Also interesting, that only every 4th think that the happiness system should have the need-mechanic.

I believe only few of players really understand the need-mechanic.

RAW poll result is nothing I'm afraid. Voted anyway

 

[JamesNinelives]

Because their lives were made so miserable by their ruler that death is no longer a deterrent

OK but people usually try other things first before throwing themselves into the meat grinder. Like protests/going on strike (e.g. city stops producing yields for a turn), rioting (improvements are pillaged, maybe loose food/production) or even try to assassinate someone (loose great person points). If we want something that balanced the unhappiness effect, maybe people try to flee the country (loose population in that city). Maybe rebels turning up should be accompanied by loosing population anyway seeing as you are killing your own people.

Does it matter the reason? Thing is, rebellions occur, now and then.

It kind of matters in that it relates to when and where those rebellions should take place in order to make any kind of sense.

it's usually not a single city that is unhappy causing you to drop to those levels of unhappiness required for some form of uprising or rebellion to take place. It's usually quite a few city that are very unhappy. So where should they spawn? It might be natural that they try and go for the capital or some larger city (which all tend to be close to the capital) then trying to conquer some small, insignificant, city on the borderlands far far away.

Only if there's some chance of success. Why would you throw away your one chance at freedom by picking a fight you know you can't win?

Most of them fated for doom.

Some of them actually worked though, and they were turning points in history. I can't see that ever happening in VP, at least via this mechanic. I guess we could rationalise barbs spawning as the ones doomed to fail and loosing a city as those that succeed. Still seems odd to me that they would go for a heavily-fortified location.

 

[tu_79]

Well then. I think we should differentiate revolts from rebels.
A revolt happens when people has nothing left to lose or they are really angry about something. It's pure rage trying to inflict damage to the culprit of its rage. It's the people saying to the ruling power that they can't allow whatever.

Rebels, on the other hand, want to change the government or even the system. If they are smart and well organised, they will produce a coup d'état aiming for the capital, or if the source of their power is in the periphery, they will try to be independent from the capital and just take secondary cities.
There must be some uprising in the country for people to be willing to join a rebellion, though, but the level of discontent does not need to be as high as in a revolt.

So, we could say that discontent might give rise to three different events, depending on the existence of groups of power and where can that power be exerted.
With no one guiding the discontent, it's just a revolt. With a peripheral power it becomes an independence war. With a central power it becomes a coup d'état.

The characteristics of each kind of discontent expression determines where they will spawn and what are their objectives.
A revolt will just spawn in a very unhappy city, will cause damage if left on its own, and will disappear once some damage has been done. An indepence war will spawn in secondary cities and will try to capture and control unprotected small cities. A coup d'état will siege the capital and if successful, it will modify some inner aspect of the culture or the religion with the caveat that some yields would be lost during the transition.

For our game we can distinguish between an unhappy city and an unhappy empire. Unhappy cities is what can produce independence wars, even when the empire is mostly happy. Unhappy empire is what can produce revolts, but since revolts don't try to achieve anything, I think they should not spawn rebel units. An empire under revolt would just suffer some damage, maybe losing population in the biggest cities, and after a few turns, things going back to normal. If more than one third of the cities in the empire are unhappy, then, instead of an independence war, they would try a coup d'état. This will turn some of the standing army to rebels and produce a few more in the capital. Their only purpose is to resist. If any rebel unit is still alive after a few turns, then the strike was successful and the government overthrown.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I believe only few of players really understand the need-mechanic.

RAW poll result is nothing I'm afraid. Voted anyway

If you dislike or be unable to understand the mechanic, both didn't speaks FOR the mechanic.
And for the concerns of other people. Civ 5, and with this mod even more, is a complex game, making it necessary that your intellectual capabilities are a bit higher than a baked potato. I think that I can assume that the most people understand the content of this poll and don't only press one button and forget the rest.
If there are only single voters or some which only stick 2 or 3 points together, this would be true to every point, so it should equalize over all options.

Sure, it needs a bit more time to get enough votes for an evidence, but I think it shows that already controversial discussed options like the needs-mechanic or urbanization are not really that wanted for the happiness system. A direct poll with only 2 or 3 options directly for one component can now show more clear results.

 

[tu_79]

If you dislike or be unable to understand the mechanic, both didn't speaks FOR the mechanic.
And for the concerns of other people. Civ 5, and with this mod even more, is a complex game, making it necessary that your intellectual capabilities are a bit higher than a baked potato. I think that I can assume that the most people understand the content of this poll and don't only press one button and forget the rest.
If there are only single voters or some which only stick 2 or 3 points together, this would be true to every point, so it should equalize over all options.

Sure, it needs a bit more time to get enough votes for an evidence, but I think it shows that already controversial discussed options like the needs-mechanic or urbanization are not really that wanted for the happiness system. A direct poll with only 2 or 3 options directly for one component can now show more clear results.

Bite, you clearly overestimate the capabilities of people. Using the rational attentive thinking requires lots of energy, so even the most clear minds use the instinctive inattentive thinking for the major part of the time.
Assuming that our responses to your poll would fall in the first category is a mistake. Properly designed queries must account for this effect.

That said, I didn't check every option I think happiness has to achieve, because I wanted to highlight just what I thought more important. There's no secondary achievement options.