Stellaris gives us too much Happiness; Happiness bonuses need to be culled

[Tannhäuser Cake]

The number, availability and size of Happiness bonuses should be reduced significantly.

It is so easy to reach and maintain very high Happiness values that the game suffers from it. Reaching 100% Happiness, plus a significant safety margin beyond that value, is trivial and can be achieved using basic Happiness modifiers available to all regular empires early in the game. This hurts Happiness-connected game aspects and the game overall:

• Amenities lose value - if other bonuses are enough to reach 100% Happiness, there is no need to produce Amenities to get that +20% Happiness; with big enough Happiness bonuses, there is no need to produce Amenities at all.
• Living standards similarly lose much of their benefits / drawbacks, once their Happiness bonuses no longer matter.
• Slavery becomes a completely safe practice, without riots or rebellions.
• Crime does not even exist (normally) at 100% Happiness. Without Crime, Enforcers also lose value. Forum comments suggest that even the free Enforcer jobs from capital buildings are routinely being disabled.
• Faction approval becomes less important when the corresponding Happiness bonus does not matter (because of Faction Unity production, this is primarily a problem in regards to there being no reason to care about the opinions of low-support factions).
• Governing Ethics Attraction increases (+50% at 100% Happiness), which not only inflates Faction Unity Gain (and tradition progress) but ultimately also increases Faction Support for the governing ethics, which in turn increases the population share that gets the +10% Happiness bonus from faction approval, which contributes to further inflation of Happiness and Stability.
• Humiliate wargoals are ineffective at hurting the other empire's internal cohesion, as the -10% Happiness modifier is rendered entirely impotent.
• Harmony sacrifices lose their value if there is no room left for further Happiness bonuses.
• Stability becomes very easy to bring up to 100%, as 100% Happiness alone brings Stability up to 80%, thereby opening up the next can of worms.
  • Research and Unity outputs are boosted, speeding up research and tradition progress.
  • Trade Value and all other resource outputs are also boosted, ultimately feeding into an even greater output of Research and Unity and further exacerbating the issue of the game progressing much faster than it otherwise would (not to mention that various timed threats, such as marauders and crises, become relatively weaker than they would have been).
  • Revolts and rebellions become less common.
  • Jobs lose value (Enforcers and so on).
  • Civics with Stability bonuses lose value.
  • Edicts and other expensive sources of Stability lose value.
  • Pacifist has lost most of its benefits; under the current ethics setup, both the Happiness and the Stability bonuses soon become worthless, leaving only the Empire Size From Pops reduction - the value of which, ironically, depends on how much the Pacifist empires manage to expand.

Et cetera.

An overhaul of Happiness (and Stability) may not sound very flashy, but it has the potential to revitalize many parts of the game - and offer us a more challenging, and thereby more rewarding, game experience. It may also be necessary for any hypothetical future "internal politics" DLC to work well, when considering how profoundly the excessive Happiness distorts the inner workings of Stellaris empires.

(An overhaul of Happiness and Stability could possibly also be done alongside an Amenities overhaul, since Amenities is so closely connected to Happiness. There have been suggestions that base Amenities production could be reduced, especially for the higher-level jobs, while simultaneously introducing more production bonuses throughout the game from traditions and new technologies, and giving Xenophile a bonus to Amenities production. If done correctly, it could make the game more involving and interesting while simultaneously diverting jobs away from Research and Unity output, subtly further reining in technology and tradition progress. But that is another topic for other threads.)

The second post contains a list of some (not all) Happiness bonuses, and some ideas on how they could be handled.

 

[HFY]

Thinking about this a bit, one possible solution which softens both the happiness cap and unhappiness floor would be to treat happiness sources as a ratio instead of a linear scale.

Adding +10 happiness would not give +10% colony mood, it would give +10 to one side of the fraction -- if both sides of the fraction are already large, that +10 would be a small movement.

It would function more like Amenities do right now, where having a large population means +10 of them isn't a big jump.

On the flip side, it would mean that unhappiness also could stack much deeper without hitting negatives.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Thinking about this a bit, one possible solution which softens both the happiness cap and unhappiness floor would be to treat happiness sources as a ratio instead of a linear scale.

Adding +10 happiness would not give +10% colony mood, it would give +10 to one side of the fraction -- if both sides of the fraction are already large, that +10 would be a small movement.

It would function more like Amenities do right now, where having a large population means +10 of them isn't a big jump.

On the flip side, it would mean that unhappiness also could stack much deeper without hitting negatives.

That is an interesting idea. It would put an end to the biggest problem of Happiness (and Stability?) being capped, i.e. that Happiness bonuses lose value once 100% is reached. As more bonuses are accumulated, the "expensive" sources (amenities production, living standards) can be dropped, and ultimately every additional bonus becomes completely worthless. Making the final Happiness value a ratio of the negatives and the positives would prevent that, though it would not necessarily solve the issue of amenities and living standards losing importance as more bonuses are accumulated. It would depend on how the model is designed; for instance, it could consists of two parts that are added together, where one is ratio-based and the other contains effects from amenities and living standards.

 

[XCodes]

I am utterly baffled by this suggestion post.

If someone wants to build an empire with +300% happiness, then who really cares that it's technically possible?

It's not ever going to happen in multiplayer. Heck, it's probably not even going to happen in high-difficulty single-player.

What is the problem and why is nerfing the objectively worst ethic in the game the solution?

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I am utterly baffled by this suggestion post.

If someone wants to build an empire with +300% happiness, then who really cares that it's technically possible?

It's not ever going to happen in multiplayer. Heck, it's probably not even going to happen in high-difficulty single-player.

What is the problem and why is nerfing the objectively worst ethic in the game the solution?

The game design problems deriving from excessive Happiness are clearly spelled out in the original post, and the reference to 300% Happiness was just a brief, concluding observation at the end of the second post. The second post also makes it crystal clear in bold, red letters that the list of specific suggestions are nothing more than a collection "brainstorming ideas" on how the issue COULD be tackled, and NOT part of the suggestion itself.

 

[XCodes]

Because your original post is nonsense and self-contradictory. You are never intended to build double amenities for pops. The limit is to cover corner-cases on newly-colonized planets, not to create any kind of aspirational goal that you should be maxing out Amenities for any purpose whatsoever. Doing so is objectively bad and inefficient, and if you want to do it for roleplay reasons that's fine, but that's not a mechanical problem. You also bring up how faction approval becomes less valuable because you don't need the happiness from them, but also talk at length about how you get governing ethics attraction from high happiness and that's important because you get higher faction unity gain -- another value that is also directly affected by faction approval. Humiliate Wargoals are also never going to lose value because every time you successfully humiliate another empire you gain 100 Influence. You can also magnify the 10% happiness penalty by bombing their planets, since Devastation is a direct percentage penalty to Amenities production, which would cause a substantial happiness penalty on the planet for a long period of time. If you're further doing this to a militarist empire then their militarist faction will be very upset with them for losing a war.

In other words, your original post suggests that if you play the game in a strange and inefficient way then you can continue playing the game in a strange and inefficient way in other ways and gain minor benefits out of it... Except you just don't play the game this way. You pick the option on the Tree of Life event that gives you +5 leader lifespan. You don't fight the Sentinels (which you realize is a very expensive and difficult fight to pull off, don't you?). You don't take Idealistic Foundation. You pick up the Pacifist ethic and then ignore, undermine, and marginalize your Pacifist faction because that's a completely valid playstyle.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Because your original post is nonsense

It seems you are quite alone in your conclusion. Does that tell you anything?

 

[XCodes]

It seems you are quite alone in your conclusion. Does that tell you anything?

No, it doesn't, because that's literally a logical fallacy which is only compounded by the fact that there are, like, 20 people who regularly post on this board out of all the people who play Stellaris, and even most of those 20 people aren't coming near this post with a 10' pole.

Happiness isn't supposed to be one of the variables in the economy that is just a bottomless pit of investment to get normal output. It's supposed to be a basic, consistent upkeep on your economy as a whole, and there are multiple pathways to accomplish that. If you nerf Happiness then you're not making the game better in any real way, you're just making the game more annoying by adding yet another layer of economic micromanagement that doesn't accomplish any appreciable benefit, but only staves off a more catastrophic outcome. Messing with that is a terrible idea.

 

[WoodenP]

I just wanted to comment in here again and promote some more discussion, as I think this was an extremely well written post with a lot of value.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I think this was an extremely well written post with a lot of value.

Thank you!

 

[WoodenP]

Thank you!

If you could pick the five most impactful nerfs to happiness sources, which would you go for?

I'm thinking of making a mod (where I also lower the base value somewhat, which I know you personally ruled out but I think is a quick compromise I can perform).

Right now the only major outlier I have in mind is the happiness festivals, and I'm wondering what you think another four or five would be.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

If you could pick the five most impactful nerfs to happiness sources, which would you go for?

I'm thinking of making a mod (where I also lower the base value somewhat, which I know you personally ruled out but I think is a quick compromise I can perform).

Right now the only major outlier I have in mind is the happiness festivals, and I'm wondering what you think another four or five would be.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The main issue is that there are just so many sources of Happiness bonuses.

Though the enclave festival is definitely an abnormal outlier that should be nerfed into the ground.

Two nerfs that are not necessarily very impactful, but at least very easy to justify:

• +5% Happiness from the "A New Generation" agenda is fairly common, and the important bonus of the agenda is the pop growth.
• +5% Happiness from the "Nutritional Plenitude" edict also seems reasonable to remove, for the same reason.

As for impactful:

• +5%/+10% Happiness from faction approval could perhaps also be removed, not because it is necessarily a bad bonus as such, but because the main benefit of faction approval is faction Unity AND this would be a Happiness reduction that would be felt everywhere, all the time. It can also be argued that majority factions would kind of expect the empire's policies to be according to their interests - and when people just expect things to be done the right way, they no longer feel very happy about it. Negative Happiness for malcontents should definitely stay though.
• I would kind of want to remove the +5% Happiness bonus for psionic pops, if that ascension path was not weaker than the other two, and higher-quality pops seems a reasonable compensation for their lack of higher-quantity pops.
• Reduced Happiness bonuses from living standards would be impactful, but this would reduce the differences between Auth/Egal empires and delay the point at which Utopian Abundance becomes worthwhile. It would also take a lot more number changes than simpler Happiness tweaks.
• An easier alternative may be to reduce or eliminate the Happiness bonus from Amenities in excess of the basic needs; IIRC the AI does not make much use of it anyway, so this could have the positive side-effect of making the human/AI ability difference smaller. Though it would also only really be impactful for human players who actually reach for the +20% Happiness bonus.

The above is written with the caveats that I have not played the game since the end of last summer, and that I don't have much time to spend on the forum (this question included; with more time, the quality of my answer might have been better). Essentially - there may be better ideas than these. Also, it's your mod and you know better than I what gameplay effects you are aiming for and which ones you would rather avoid.

 

[HFY]

Though the enclave festival is definitely an abnormal outlier that should be nerfed into the ground.

Just make it 1 planet chosen at random instead of all planets.

Then it's a decent buff for "tall" empires, but a much smaller benefit when you start winning.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Removing the happiness from Nutritional Plenitude makes it near useless, I think. It becomes a trap in the same way that gene clinics are (without the increased productivity from habitability). If it were cheaper (ex. 10% extra food, not 25%), that would be fine, though.

A lot of these happiness bonuses might be better off rescaled, rather than removed. And their costs reduced, correspondingly.

Agreed, the festival is crazy broken, though. It's ridiculous that 1000 energy gets you +10% growth and +15% happiness, empire wide, for 10 years. Even the drawbacks (occasionally a pop dying, they steal your stuff and leave, etc.) aren't painful enough to make it balanced.

 

[HFY]

Removing the happiness from Nutritional Plenitude makes it near useless, I think. It becomes a trap in the same way that gene clinics are (without the increased productivity from habitability). If it were cheaper (ex. 10% extra food, not 25%), that would be fine, though.

Let it reduce crime, reduce Amenities consumption (-10% or so), and maybe reduce the cost a bit. Then it's a lateral job shift from Entertainers (and Artisans and Enforcers) to Farmers, with some bonus growth.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I just had a "radical" thought which combined with another, and then spawned a third, forming a potentially cohesive trinity. The second post has been updated accordingly, but here is a simpler and more cohesive representation:

1. The Happiness bonus from surplus Amenities could be removed. Living Standards could instead affect Amenities upkeep. This would essentially incorporate the "Happiness from surplus Amenities" mechanic into Living Standards, where different Living Standards would represent different targets (and expectations) for Amenities production. Staying above the higher Amenities target would still be associated with a Happiness bonus.
2. Political Power could be removed from Living Standards (as someone has suggested before). Political Power bonuses to different strata could instead be moved to governmental Authority Types and civics.
3. Citizenship Type could drop its modifiers for Political Power (and Amenities upkeep, and Happiness, and perhaps even Housing usage), but instead directly limit which strata free pops can work in.

Essentially:

• Living Standards affect pop Happiness and upkeep (Consumer Goods, Amenities, perhaps even Housing), but not Political Power, of different strata.
• (Government) Authority Types, and some civics, determine the Political Power of different strata. Democracies are the most equal, while autocracies have the most powerful Ruler pops.
• Citizenship Type determines which strata a pop (species) can join; just Workers, or also Specialists, or also Rulers (and leaders). Citizenship Type does not directly affect Political Power, Happiness, or pop upkeep any more.

Or, in layman's terms:

• citizenship determines which strata free pops can join,
• living standards determine how wealthy and happy pops are in a stratum, and
• social power structures determine how much their happiness matters for social stability.

This could be a much cleaner and more straightforward design, in regards to the roles of the different features. It would also make the strata the prime conduit of upkeep, economic Happiness and Political Power, instead of both strata and species rights directly influencing them. This setup may also enable new possibilities, such as new combinations of Political Power and Living Standards - for instance, benevolent (non-authoritarian) hierarchies could become a thing.

The AI should be much better equipped to handle this setup (as it is competent at avoiding Amenities deficits) than the current Amenities surplus modifier. This setup would also remove the annoyance of having to check the tooltip to know which amount of Amenities is needed for the +20% bonus, since the goal would always be to just stay above 0; the tooltip would mostly be helpful when considering a new Living Standard.

Some trailing thoughts...

Decadent Lifestyle could get an extra high Amenities upkeep (to encourage Pleasure Seeker societies to have more pops in service jobs).

Depending on how scarce Happiness bonuses could be made, a bonus to the Political Power of the Ruler stratum could become desirable. In such a scenario, the Authoritarian ethic could offer a bonus to Ruler Political Power - which would essentially translate into a Stability bonus from the higher Happiness of Ruler pops. Sort of like a domestic version of Power Projection (technically an Influence bonus, but derived from military strength). Basically, the Authoritarian ethic would promise greater social stability if only more power is put in the hands of those "most qualified".

Xenophobes could disagree on whether (free) xenos should be entrusted with Specialist jobs. Their choice between free and enslaved xenos could also be influenced by their societal power structure, i.e. depend more on whether they are Egalitarian or Authoritarian.

Perhaps this setup could also enable a new look at the relationship between Authoritarian, Xenophobe and slavery, that would more clearly differentiate between Authoritarian and Egalitarian Xenophobes and make slavery more of an Authoritarian feature again.