Where is the fun? - or why is there no Disneyland in space?

[Dorian Ertymexx]

With Asimov having arrived, I have noted that it is even more difficult to keep a population happy than before. Which to me is kind of... odd.

I remember good old MOO3 (Master of Orion 3), where you could assign areas to be strictly for creating fun and relaxation, that is, focusing on making the population happier. This is actually a rather fundamental thing - any intelligent race that can have fun will want to have fun, and being unable to provide that will rapidly make that civilisation collapse. Bread and circuces, as the romans would have said.

My suggestion is this: add a building just like for mining, food and power, that is focused on creating happiness, a building that is not empire or even planet unique, and that is upgradeable through science. Now, it doesn't have to be very powerful, I would imagine that each one could add, say 2,5% happiness at lvl1, 3,75 att lvl2 and a whopping 5% at lvl 3. Note that this way, on small planets you still cannot create too much happiness, unless you are willing to use plots of land that would otherwise go to power, mines or unique buildings. On larger worlds this would be less of a problem, but it would still "cost" several plots of land to raise happiness significantly.

Also with such a small addition per building, the bonuses from alien pets and teldar plants would still be a great boon, saving the owner of the resources several plots, thus giving more room for other resources.

I believe that this would make the game more interesting, making it possible to actually directly influence local happiness on planets, but at a cost.

This would also allow for special events that could influence happiness one way or another, making it more of a risk not to keep your population satisfied.

I hope my ideas are of interest, as I think it would add a small but hopefully interesting dimension to the game.

 

[corny.1234]

You have already edicts for increased happiness. 1 at the empire level increasing the happiness at costs of the global production.
The second at planetary level at a fix cost of influence.

Anyway, referring to your post's title, there is a Disney Land in space, discoverable via anomaly (alien amusement Park)

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

Edicts are a far cry from having permanent buildings, especially with the edict cost for large empires. Edicts would work well when/if you have random events that lower happiness for a period of time, or if you simply cannot afford to build funlands on your small planet. Or if you want to improve a planet via terraforming (which, as I recall, makes the population very displeased). Edicts are for when you focus on some part of the production, not a replacement for production. I mean, you could say the same thing for food, mines or power - why have buildings if you have edicts?

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

As for the Alien amusment park, you can only build one. It is like saying that you can only have one themepark on Earth. Ever. Sorry guys, no santa-land, we already have Disneyworld (and euro-disney is SO off the table). Fun and relaxation is central to humans (and, arguably, to all sentient beings).

 

[corny.1234]

As for the Alien amusment park, you can only build one. It is like saying that you can only have one themepark on Earth. Ever. Sorry guys, no santa-land, we already have Disneyworld (and euro-disney is SO off the table). Fun and relaxation is central to humans (and, arguably, to all sentient beings).

I think you are missunderstanding the concepts in the game.

One pop doesn't represent one person
One building doesn't represent one building, but an industrial region.

I know this is fiction, but I can't imagine an Interstellar empire building amusement parks or sectors of the size of a continent on their planets.
So in fact a Disney continent

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

I think you are missunderstanding the concepts in the game.

One pop doesn't represent one person
One building doesn't represent one building, but an industrial region.

I know this is fiction, but I can't imagine an Interstellar empire building amusement parks or sectors of the size of a continent on their planets.
So in fact a Disney continent

I do not misunderstand. Just as you can build sveral areas with mines, energy production or farms, you should be able to build several areas with R&R.

 

[nweismuller]

Isn't this a big part of what the Hyper-Entertainment Forum is meant to be?

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

Isn't this a big part of what the Hyper-Entertainment Forum is meant to be?

Yes, but that is only for one ethos. That is saying that the USA, a militaristic, spiritualist nation cannot build Disneyland, because... because!

With my suggestion, every ethos can build happy places, but certain ethos still have superior buildings that are at least twice as effective, leading to more plots being open for mining or whatnot. Just like every ethos can build research buildings, but materialists can build better ones (or at least ONE superior building).

 

[domein]

Why worry about pop happiness at all, this provides very little benefit especially if you would need to waste plots for this, just keep them at base 50%

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

Why worry about pop happiness at all, this provides very little benefit especially if you would need to waste plots for this, just keep them at base 50%

Because then you can script random events that raise or lower pop happiness as an effect, without it becoming a total planetkiller. More complexity means more variations to a game. Because if happiness is so meaningless as you say, what is the point of even having it in the game?

 

[nweismuller]

Yes, but that is only for one ethos. That is saying that the USA, a militaristic, spiritualist nation cannot build Disneyland, because... because!

With my suggestion, every ethos can build happy places, but certain ethos still have superior buildings that are at least twice as effective, leading to more plots being open for mining or whatnot. Just like every ethos can build research buildings, but materialists can build better ones (or at least ONE superior building).

The USA isn't Individualist?

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

The USA isn't Individualist?

Not really, no... But even if, is China individualist? Hardly, right? And yet they have the same kind of amusementparks (zoos, tivolis, museums, whathaveyou) as the states. It simply isn't a matter of ideology or ethics. Everyone wants to have fun, and recreation is necessary for a functioning society. Then you can argument that some societies are better at it than others, but that is not the same as stating that some societies don't have recreation at all. And thus the improved buildings that some ethos have and others don't. But as it stands, many have no way of entertainment at all, which to me is plainly absurd.

 

[efrim black]

Not really, no...

You are rapidly losing me. The USA has an almost feverish cult of the individual. Regardless;

With my suggestion, every ethos can build happy places, but certain ethos still have superior buildings that are at least twice as effective, leading to more plots being open for mining or whatnot. Just like every ethos can build research buildings, but materialists can build better ones (or at least ONE superior building).

This is already a thing in the game. So I'm really not sure what more you're asking for.
Individualists have the entertainment forum.
Monarchies can build royal gardens.
Xenophobes have purity monuments - Xenophiles get Visitor Centers which draw alien migrants and get a happiness bonus from their presence.
Militarists have Combat Arenas - Pacifists get Paradise Domes.
Additionally - if you can get access to alien pets as a resource (way easier since 1.2) any type of government can build a Xeno Zoo.

The only ethics that doesn't have a corresponding happiness inducing building seems to be Collectivists - which makes a sort of sense as the individual happiness of the subjects is irrelevant considering the greater whole. This is balanced by the research allowing for Social Welfare being more heavily weighted to appear for Collectivists.

I do agree that a wider variety and perhaps a bit more complexity to buildings on planets might be interesting (and maybe an auto-upgrade button), but I really don't think Happiness as it currently exists needs a whole lot of tweaking.

 

[Dalinski]

Would be so cool if they did stuff like this, kind of like wonders in space that had some sort of affect.....

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

You are rapidly losing me. The USA has an almost feverish cult of the individual. Regardless;




This is already a thing in the game. So I'm really not sure what more you're asking for.
Individualists have the entertainment forum.
Monarchies can build royal gardens.
Xenophobes have purity monuments - Xenophiles get Visitor Centers which draw alien migrants and get a happiness bonus from their presence.
Militarists have Combat Arenas - Pacifists get Paradise Domes.
Additionally - if you can get access to alien pets as a resource (way easier since 1.2) any type of government can build a Xeno Zoo.

The only ethics that doesn't have a corresponding happiness inducing building seems to be Collectivists - which makes a sort of sense as the individual happiness of the subjects is irrelevant considering the greater whole. This is balanced by the research allowing for Social Welfare being more heavily weighted to appear for Collectivists.

I do agree that a wider variety and perhaps a bit more complexity to buildings on planets might be interesting (and maybe an auto-upgrade button), but I really don't think Happiness as it currently exists needs a whole lot of tweaking.

I disagree with that it makes sense. Collectivism isn't a slave state, you still want to make sure that the collective is happy and productive.

 

[efrim black]

I disagree with that it makes sense. Collectivism isn't a slave state, you still want to make sure that the collective is happy and productive.

Well then this conversation is at a dead end. That is exactly how the Devs have chosen to structure Collectivists (disregarding individual happiness in favor of other types of population control) so you will need to make that case first. Even if I agreed with your interpretation of Collectivist Ethics; which I do not; the Devs disagree: Again - they made the primary bonus for Collectivism tolerance of Slavery; and collectivist societies start with policies that allow for purging, resettlement, and slavery. So I'm not really sure what else to say.