What should the happiness system achieve? [POLL]

[BiteInTheMark]

I love this line. Totally gonna steal it.

I agree with the others that the poll data has limited usefulness - there is more value in examining what people did pick than what they didn't, as James said.

Personally I like the needs system in principle but I think a lot of players find it confusing, opaque and (in cases where there's still lots of unhappiness with all buildings constructed) out of their control. Some efforts have been made to improve the UI and the player's control over time but I think there's still a general lack of understanding about how it works and unfun situations where you get punished despite having built everything. These are problems in my opinion.

My main goal was to check if people like/want the need mechanic and urbanization. The fact that the core-mechanic of the current happiness system lies at the bottom of the score indicates, that it isn't a very liked way how to achieve a balance between war, expansion and growth.

To get more clearness, 2 separate polls which only are there for the need-mechanic and urbanization are needed. Sure.

 

[Emperorman1]

I think the happiness system is fine. I just dont like the empire modifier, I think it should be reduced.

 

[Recursive]

My main goal was to check if people like/want the need mechanic and urbanization. The fact that the core-mechanic of the current happiness system lies at the bottom of the score indicates, that it isn't a very liked way how to achieve a balance between war, expansion and growth.

To get more clearness, 2 separate polls which only are there for the need-mechanic and urbanization are needed. Sure.

I'd argue the phrasing "Force effectiveness of citizens (needs)" is a bit unclear, especially if quickly glanced at. Much of the needs system is dependent on your choice of city site, buildings, and tile improvements. Citizen micromanagement is usually done to maximize yields and work specialist slots, not minimize unhappiness; your citizens will most likely contribute to reducing Distress without active intervention. Your phrasing made me think of citizen micromanagement, not per-population yield rates. So I think other people might also have been confused or unsure about that, especially with so many options available in this poll.

A clear, specific poll for the needs system would be a good idea, I agree.

 

[youngsteve]

I think criticism of the poll is unfair on the originator as all he is doing is trying to find out peoples opinions regarding happiness system. All polls, particularly ones about specific games, are just a small snapshot on people who frequent those forums, but all still useful in finding out peoples opinions about something.

 

[Recursive]

I think criticism of the poll is unfair on the originator as all he is doing is trying to find out peoples opinions regarding happiness system. All polls, particularly ones about specific games, are just a small snapshot on people who frequent those forums, but all still useful in finding out peoples opinions about something.

OP has made disputed claims about what the poll's results mean, e.g.

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.

While I'm not saying Bite is wrong or faulting him for his attempt to gather data - he may be right, and there's some useful stuff here - I think criticism of the basis for his argument (the poll data) is valid. In fact I'd say your point actually supports the criticism in this case, since you (correctly) note that the poll is not necessarily representative, thus drawing conclusions off of it risks inaccuracy.

There seems to be a general consensus that a more specific poll/thread would provide more useful feedback. The accuracy of such a poll is also worth questioning, but Yes/No or a few options on a more specific question is more useful in terms of data.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think criticism of the poll is unfair on the originator as all he is doing is trying to find out peoples opinions regarding happiness system.

While I'm not saying Bite is wrong or faulting him for his attempt to gather data - he may be right, and there's some useful stuff here - I think criticism of the basis for his argument (the poll data) is valid.

I am open for every constructive critic, and you are maybe right, that some options could be formulated better.
Unfortunately I am no English native speaker and be handycapped by writing only on phone instead on a pc with big screen. But still, the big discrepancy between 64% for the war option and 24% for the need option let me think, it can't be only cause of a bad description.
@Stalker0 brought up the option of a mod mod, different people anticipate to this and a lot of talk is done about happiness. I think the community is open for a new system, if it's able to work atleast as good as the current one and be easier to understand and manageble.

It was often said, no new mechanics, but the mod is still in process. I would like to know if the developers support a mod mod or even a new system, if it's ready to be integrated.
We can talk a lot about how unhappy we are about the happiness-system or talk about new concepts, if no one is there to code that stuff, we are only producing hot air.

I am currently writing down a concept how a new system could work.

 

[Recursive]

I am open for every constructive critic, and you are maybe right, that some options could be formulated better.
Unfortunately I am no English native speaker and be handycapped by writing only on phone instead on a pc with big screen. But still, the big discrepancy between 64% for the war option and 24% for the need option let me think, it can't be only cause of a bad description.
@Stalker0 brought up the option of a mod mod, different people anticipate to this and a lot of talk is done about happiness. I think the community is open for a new system, if it's able to work atleast as good as the current one and be easier to understand and manageble.

It was often said, no new mechanics, but the mod is still in process. I would like to know if the developers support a mod mod or even a new system, if it's ready to be integrated.
We can talk a lot about how unhappy we are about the happiness-system or talk about new concepts, if no one is there to code that stuff, we are only producing hot air.

I am currently writing down a concept how a new system could work.

The mod's code is open source. Even if we were against modmods we can't exactly stop you.

If someone writes alternative code for a happiness modmod and some option needs DLL integration or something, I'm sure that'll happen, no worries.

(As long as it's coded correctly as an option rather than deleting and overwriting the existing code, of course)

 

[Ragic]

sigh. I think you guys are changing stuff just for the sake of changing it. Wide vs tall? Who cares, this is a SOLO game. My biggest challenge isn’t figuring out how many cities I can manage. It’s trying to figure out what buildings and workers actually do buried under all the stats they modify.

 

[4CV]

Really Advanced Setup offers "disable happiness". No Golden Ages, but that should be o.k., if VP works as usual.
Strange enough, I noticed the option just now, although I often disabled nuclear weapon before. Is it new?

 

[Recursive]

Really Advanced Setup offers "disable happiness". No Golden Ages, but that should be o.k., if VP works as usual.
Strange enough, I noticed the option just now, although I often disabled nuclear weapon before. Is it new?

Always been there.

 

[4CV]

Always been there.

Really? Maybe I've had too many ...

 

[Recursive]

These options aren't actually added by RAS, they're just hidden vanilla options that you can't see in the normal menu. If you play the Fall of Rome scenario you can see that happiness is turned off (for Attila, possibly others too).

 

[youngsteve]

Really Advanced Setup offers "disable happiness". No Golden Ages, but that should be o.k., if VP works as usual.
Strange enough, I noticed the option just now, although I often disabled nuclear weapon before. Is it new?

I have never noticed being able to disable nuclear weapons before, though don't change much. Has that been there for long, as have always hated that in game.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Happiness system:
The poll for the happiness system isn't over yet, but it shows already tendencies. It seems that for the most people, the following aspects are important to be addressed by happiness/unhappiness:

(situation on 30.11.2020, 13:10)
66,0% - Reduce/Limit the ability to be at war (war weariness)
58,5% - Limit the ability to conquer cities (in short time)
54,7% - Limit/slow down expansion of the empire in general
50,9% - Slow down early expansion
50,9% - Force the construction of buildings/infrastructure
To a much lesser degree but still important:
37,7% - Punish losing a war (pillage tiles/trade route)
35,8% - Should harm cause of ideological pressure
30,2% - Reduce/Limit growth of cities

In a short sentence: Happiness should mainly care about Expansion and Growth, War and Infrastructure, later on a tool to force Ideologies.

Ilteroi, Tu_79 and I had the same Idea. A currency which links each of those components with each other and make it harder to follow the main paths of Growth (Tall/Tradition), Expansion (Thick/Progress) and War (wide/Authority) at the same time. The core of the new system will be based on a good Infrastructure, but will not depend on it solely.

So let's get started:
Happiness/Unhappiness gets replaced with stability points (SP). SP are earned per turn and add to a empire wide bank. You can earn SP mostly through this:
Palace
Luxuries
Buildings (council, circus, etc.)
National and World Wonders
Policies
Those options, as well as each additional city founded/annexed after your capital, increase the maximum of the bank.
The more SP you have on the bank, the more is the SP income reduced (for each 1% of the maximum filled, you generate 1% less, for example).
This means, it's relatively easy to earn a good amount of SP but gets harder, if you want to hoard a big sum of them. This also means, with a wider empire and more infrastructure, your maximum of stability points increase and you can collect more flat SP, before the decrease of SP gets too strong.
The relative amount of SP you have in comparison to your maximum defines the stability of your empire.
This can range from 0-100%.
Beeing above specific values offer benefits, staying below specific values harm you with disadvantages. (for example: Beeing above 60% increases yields, beeing below 20% forbids settling, below 10% activate the rebel mechanic... What ever)

There are also things which directly decrease your SP:
Founding a city
Birth of a citizen
Unlock a technology
Conquering a city
Losing a city/unit/trade route

Additional rules:
Puppets didn't generate SP or increase max. of SP, but drain them by birth of citizens and by a flat value
Luxuries gives SP based on your median population
A stability process allows you to temporarily triple the SP generation of a city
(optional PW replacement: A national project, which is repeatable and increases in cost (like PW) allows you contribute with several cities to a permanent increase of SP generation and maximum)
(optional urbanization replacement: the relative amount of specialists in your cities in comparison to your total population decrease the SP generation, or a flat value)
(optional war weariness: own units in enemy territory deplete SP or increase the SP reduction)

Golden ages:
I think it's not that difficult to adjust the current Golden age mechanic with this system, but I want to show also here a different idea:
Golden ages always happens with the entry of a new era. The maximum of the GA length is set to 20 turns. With the start of the GA, your average empire stability modifies the length of it. An average stability of 50% since the last entry in a new era would give you guaranteed GA of 10 turns.
Policies/Monopolies/Wonders of course could modify this too.

 

[tu_79]

Sounds good.
I'm missing the local stuff. Is there going to be unruly cities in need of extra attention? Where would rebels spawn?
What limits the maximum Stability Points? Is it the total population or something else?
I'd add extra stability cost for duplicated actions, so if you capture two cities without nothing else happening in between, it will cost as if you took three cities. Or if you do nothing else but growing populace, it will cost extra sp. That way the players must try at least a couple of different options.

Then there's the little problem of how to transform what we have now into what we want to see, in a balanced manner.

 

[Stalker0]

Happiness/Unhappiness gets replaced with stability points (SP). SP are earned per turn and add to a empire wide bank. You can earn SP mostly through this:

My initial notes:

1) You are going to need to provide a set X amount of SP at the start of the game. This will give civ the launching point to place a few settlers down, otherwise expansion will likely be too slow.

2) GA....just drop the changes, no one has an issue with GAs, no need to change them. Doing so just muddies the waters.

3) I would remove the Trade unit as a way to lose SP. Its already painful enough to lose TRs, and its not like you can really protect your TRs when war breaks out, unlike units that you do have full control on whether they live or die.

4) Right now you are proposing a double whammy for a new city. One it costs SP, but it also increases your SP bank. While that is a benefit long term, in the short term it might tank your SP % (all depends on the final numbers). This is something that has to be figured out as numbers are drafted but its important to watch, you don't want your second or third city just drop your % like a stone.

 

[Gazebo]

My initial notes:

1) You are going to need to provide a set X amount of SP at the start of the game. This will give civ the launching point to place a few settlers down, otherwise expansion will likely be too slow.

2) GA....just drop the changes, no one has an issue with GAs, no need to change them. Doing so just muddies the waters.

3) I would remove the Trade unit as a way to lose SP. Its already painful enough to lose TRs, and its not like you can really protect your TRs when war breaks out, unlike units that you do have full control on whether they live or die.

4) Right now you are proposing a double whammy for a new city. One it costs SP, but it also increases your SP bank. While that is a benefit long term, in the short term it might tank your SP % (all depends on the final numbers). This is something that has to be figured out as numbers are drafted but its important to watch, you don't want your second or third city just drop your % like a stone.

What you'll quickly learn with an overhaul like this is that 'simple mechanics' rarely connect well to all the moving pieces in the game. Complexity will emerge as a result.
No consideration here for war weariness, ideological unhappiness, cultural influence, vassalage, policy methods, city/wonder/building/policy/religion modifiers, etc.

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but the sheer amount of spaghetti required to make this work on even a rudimentary level would make the most sincere Italian weep.

G

 

[Recursive]

What you'll quickly learn with an overhaul like this is that 'simple mechanics' rarely connect well to all the moving pieces in the game. Complexity will emerge as a result.
No consideration here for war weariness, ideological unhappiness, cultural influence, vassalage, policy methods, city/wonder/building/policy/religion modifiers, etc.

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but the sheer amount of spaghetti required to make this work on even a rudimentary level would make the most sincere Italian weep.

G

I dunno, I think Luigi might be up to the challenge.

I can attest through my own experience that the mod is a very large project and changing one element (even an AI element, let alone balance) can have ripple effects across the board. It's certainly not impossible, but it'd need a lot of dedicated work and probably a team of testers to get this functional, particularly since it's overhauling such an ingrained element of the game. The AI would also need to be taught to use the alternative system.

 

[smorgasborgas]

I also believe that the happiness system is one of the only ways that we are reminded that these are 'people' we're dealing with, not game pieces or zerg or what have you.

A happiness issue I would like dealt with is unhappiness even after I've built all the appropriate buildings, just because of specialists and other civ's levels. Near end game I'm tech and culture leader, all my cities have all the tech buildings, I lead in production but I have 40% approval from distress, illiteracy (!), and specialists. This unhappiness seems out of my control and not a result of my decisions. As a result it doesn't seem like a strategic penalty, rather just an artifact of a happiness system that isn't tuned for this circumstance.

 

[Gazebo]

I also believe that the happiness system is one of the only ways that we are reminded that these are 'people' we're dealing with, not game pieces or zerg or what have you.

A happiness issue I would like dealt with is unhappiness even after I've built all the appropriate buildings, just because of specialists and other civ's levels. Near end game I'm tech and culture leader, all my cities have all the tech buildings, I lead in production but I have 40% approval from distress, illiteracy (!), and specialists. This unhappiness seems out of my control and not a result of my decisions. As a result it doesn't seem like a strategic penalty, rather just an artifact of a happiness system that isn't tuned for this circumstance.

The US is a world leader in tech and (pop) culture, yet I would argue that illiteracy and uncultured-ness are at an all time-high right now.

Being a leader in statistics does not mean that your people are not average on the...well...average.

G