Console NPC Happiness Ruined the Game

@Coleyohley
Those builds are pretty awesome!

I think though, looking at old worlds we would naturally run into that happiness system ruined them. Exactly because sheer convinience made players usually build a large central base, and all NPCs were in one place, for easy access to everything - and they were wiped out alltogether too, when the pirates paid a visit, or a stray mothron decided to lay some eggs in your base...

I think, we should look at the issue more regarding new maps. Old maps of course have a place in our hearts, as they're often memorable due to the adventures of their respective playthrough, but in the pre-1.4 era, almost everyone built one big central base, simply because of convinience. But now in the 1.4 era, things are kind of different. So, I think, we should compare 1.4 maps with 1.4 maps, and not with older maps.

In a way, the "big central base" thing was "forced" on the player too, due to convinience. because if you would wanted to spread out your NPCs more, you would been "punished" by the game in the way, that you would have to walk half the map, just to get your items reforged, or something. So, most players naturally placed NPCs in a large central base, because that was convinient. - of course, if you wanted to build an awesome central base just because of awesome build ideas, then it's not only just about convinience, but in most players' cases, I think the main factor was convinience.


By the way, thinking about the whole "let's get rid of the punishments but keep the bonuses", what would likely happen? wouldn't people eventually complain like "I want the bonuses too, but I just wanna place my NPCs the way I want, because don't tell me how to place them, in a "sandbox" game!" Wouldn't that likely to happen? or I think there were people saying stuff like that before too. because there always would be people who think "no bonus = punishment".

In the end of the day though, the higher prices are mostly only a problem very early game - before you could easily farm some bosses or other stuff for money - and later only a few very specific expensive stuff, like the clemtaminator. most other cases, the prices doesn't seem to matter a real lot, but it might be just my opinion.
 
Those builds are pretty awesome!

I think though, looking at old worlds we would naturally run into that happiness system ruined them. Exactly because sheer convinience made players usually build a large central base, and all NPCs were in one place, for easy access to everything - and they were wiped out alltogether too, when the pirates paid a visit, or a stray mothron decided to lay some eggs in your base...

I think, we should look at the issue more regarding new maps. Old maps of course have a place in our hearts, as they're often memorable due to the adventures of their respective playthrough, but in the pre-1.4 era, almost everyone built one big central base, simply because of convinience. But now in the 1.4 era, things are kind of different. So, I think, we should compare 1.4 maps with 1.4 maps, and not with older maps.
My point here was to show that these were the kind of buildings I loved to make back in 1.3, and now I can't do it without being arbitrarily punished for no real reason. Missing out on the discounts and easy fast travel should be all the "punishment" that's needed: The natural cost of picking large castles over spread-out settlements. There was simply no need to go and further punish the way I enjoyed building.

In a way, the "big central base" thing was "forced" on the player too, due to convinience. because if you would wanted to spread out your NPCs more, you would been "punished" by the game in the way, that you would have to walk half the map, just to get your items reforged, or something. So, most players naturally placed NPCs in a large central base, because that was convinient. - of course, if you wanted to build an awesome central base just because of awesome build ideas, then it's not only just about convinience, but in most players' cases, I think the main factor was convinience.
This I can actually see and agree with. Again, the upsides of the system are brilliant. I'm not negative about their implementation, very much the opposite. I agree that the positives should stay. They encourage you to spread out across the world where before you really had no reason to, and the option is very much welcome. But why did it need to come at the cost of what was already there? Why can't both options exist side-by-side?

By the way, thinking about the whole "let's get rid of the punishments but keep the bonuses", what would likely happen? wouldn't people eventually complain like "I want the bonuses too, but I just wanna place my NPCs the way I want, because don't tell me how to place them, in a "sandbox" game!" Wouldn't that likely to happen? or I think there were people saying stuff like that before too. because there always would be people who think "no bonus = punishment".
There's a concept known as "opportunity cost." It happens when you make one decision that will lock you out of the benefits of another. Essentially, the "cost" of choosing one option is simply not being able to enjoy the benefits of the other. Say you have one accessory slot open, and you need to make a choice between Frog Leg and Putrid Scent. The benefit to Frog Leg is that you jump higher, and the only real downside is that you miss out on the extra damage you would have had from equipping Putrid Scent. The opposite is also true, as when equipping the Putrid Scent you miss out on the jump boost.

All of that sounds normal, right? Well, what if I wanted to make Putrid Scent better? Obviously I would add more positive properties to it to encourage more people to use it, but does that mean I should then go and nerf the Frog Leg while I'm at it? Obviously not, that would just be ridiculous.

People who opt for the "huge castle" approach will naturally miss out on the benefits of pylons and Happiness discounts, and the people who choose to spread their NPCs across the world will naturally miss out on the benefits of having their NPCs all in one place. There really doesn't need to be any more downsides besides that. The addition of the price increases ONLY stood to further punish people who wanted to still build like I do.

In the end of the day though, the higher prices are mostly only a problem very early game - before you could easily farm some bosses or other stuff for money - and later only a few very specific expensive stuff, like the clemtaminator. most other cases, the prices doesn't seem to matter a real lot, but it might be just my opinion.
It doesn't matter how impactful it is, I'm afraid. My problem is that it punishes players in the first place where it really has no reason to. This kind of creativity punishment simply has no business being in the game regardless of how small it is, and I'm afraid in those builds I posted earlier the punishment is anything BUT small. Not a small number of NPCS in that first base have +45% price increases on their items. Minishark? That costs 50 gold to buy there. I'm afraid this has left the realm of "unimpactful."

The thing is, I wouldn't be bothered by it as much if there was a proper reason for this price increase to exist. If it was truly, genuinely harmful to gameplay to build in this manner then I think I could understand why it would deserved to be punished. As it stands though, the only reason it exists is because Redigit couldn't stand that people built their houses differently than he wanted them to.
 
Last edited:
@Coleyohley

I see what you mean, but it's actually an interesting question, whether you can't build large bases, or just can't houses lots of NPCs in them. I usually build a small town around the center with 3-4 houses, that each can houses 4~5 NPCs, but in optimal cases they don't house that many later, in fact it can kinda feel empty too, if you move lots of NPCs elsewhere. So, yeah, to begin with, the crowding thing is weird, and on the other hand, NPCs' neighbor detect range is actually vay too small.

Though the 4-5 NPCs is might be why I don't think I really see so brutal item prices, since even if they say it's crowded, maybe it's not that much crowded, so I guess I didn't see them even rising the prices that high.

In the end, - speaking of 1.4 era, not earlier ones - what are the benefits of having a big central base? besides if you like building fancy, large, impressive castles? (which you can build, just discouraged to move all the NPCs in there)

This is actually an interesting question, because now I'm really not sure anymore, what are the benefits of it (in the 1.4 era)
even if there wouldn't be higher prices due to crowding.

Big central baseMultiple towns
building iteasy and the whole can be done basically just once early game and no need to worry about it after
(if you don't care)
takes more time, and some running back and forth when you build it, until pylons are up

(if you don't care much though, wooden, or local-material shoeboxes can be made very quickly, or repairing underground cabins)
player's building style and building preferences works if you like to build that wayworks if you like to build that way
access to NPCsvery easyvery easy, if you have pylons
item pricesno bonus
(right now, punishment)
items are cheaper to buy
NPCs' safetyinvasions, solar eclipses, etc. might wipe out the entire towneven if an invasion wipes out everyone in the central town, NPCs living elsewhere are safe

towns built in dangerous places though, might have a chance that monsters wander in, or spawn in the town and kill NPCs, when the player is outside of the town radius (this could happen in central too, but forest biome doesn't have much dangerous enemies (daytime at least)
town areas (greatly decreased monster spawnrates)just one, in the centermultiple, spread out in the world (makes fishing easier for example)
pylons as fast-travel anchorsN/Ayes, and they make traveling much easier

There are surely more, we can try to think it further and add more things to the table, I'm actually quite interested to compare them more.
Right now, I feel that the spread out towns are much more beneficial (and feel like would be so, even if overcrowding wouldn't punish you), but I probably missed some important points, so, let's see what else should be added to the table?
 
(Don't take it personally, + is only my opinion on the matter)
They tried to make NPCs more humans, with likes and dislikes and all the stuff. I am a 1.3 player, I play on console and sometimes mobile, but when the 1.4 came I just wanted to build different bases.
Let's see, you guys don't like penalties? Then don't play. Its simple... Ok not THAT simple:
The happiness: it isn't a problem, you can just put them wherever they're happier. If you want ALL NPCs to be happier, search best terraria town system or something like that.
Pylon price: no prob either, actually i think it is cheaper than it should be. "But it is early game!" Let's be honests here: Who would have more than 1 town before EoC?? + It is a fast travel thing that is WaaaY better than teleporters.
Shoeboxes: Just make them bigger, it not that hard is it? Works for me.
Towns distance: use pylon.
Punishments: "Every good thing has a bad thing" me, 2021
I mean, if you can lower the price you can rise it.
+Your city will not be wiped out on one pirate invasion

I don't see why it would be a problem at all. Personally, I've made the apartments before and i think the happiness system is way better. (My opinion(sorry if I sounded rude, not meant to))
 
As I've been repeatedly saying, accessibility is not an issue because Pylons exist which only take slightly longer to use than it does to walk over to an NPC. Also, you're still allowed to have up to three NPCs nearby, and you can still build giant multi-room houses, you just have to only house a few NPCs in them.

I'm not against removing the penalty, but I'm not for it either. I'm trying to prove that it actually makes little difference if you have to space out your NPCs rather then keeping them all in one spot. But I do think that there shouldn't be a penalty for having so little NPCs near each other, because it goes against human nature and doesn't make sense in many cases.
You can only have one pylon per biome, all the NPC's have to be happy to get a pylon, and only having 3 NPC's in one spot makes the game seem more lonely and empty. Again, just because you don't mind being forced to play the game a certain way, doesn't mean others don't. You literally have nothing to lose here. If the penalties are removed, you wouldn't even notice. All this would do is make the game better and more enjoyable for other players, but you keep opposing it for literally no good reason. Why are you so vehement against a change that will not affect you at all but will help other players enjoy the game more because it'll stop stifling their creativity?
(Don't take it personally, + is only my opinion on the matter)
They tried to make NPCs more humans, with likes and dislikes and all the stuff. I am a 1.3 player, I play on console and sometimes mobile, but when the 1.4 came I just wanted to build different bases.
Let's see, you guys don't like penalties? Then don't play. Its simple... Ok not THAT simple:
The happiness: it isn't a problem, you can just put them wherever they're happier. If you want ALL NPCs to be happier, search best terraria town system or something like that.
Pylon price: no prob either, actually i think it is cheaper than it should be. "But it is early game!" Let's be honests here: Who would have more than 1 town before EoC?? + It is a fast travel thing that is WaaaY better than teleporters.
Shoeboxes: Just make them bigger, it not that hard is it? Works for me.
Towns distance: use pylon.
Punishments: "Every good thing has a bad thing" me, 2021
I mean, if you can lower the price you can rise it.
+Your city will not be wiped out on one pirate invasion

I don't see why it would be a problem at all. Personally, I've made the apartments before and i think the happiness system is way better. (My opinion(sorry if I sounded rude, not meant to))
"I don't mind it therefore everyone who does is a whiner if you don't like it don't play the game"
Or, hear me out, this is a novel idea here, how about we fix the game so everyone can enjoy it instead of arbitrarily punishing people for building things you don't like? If you like the system, you will not lose anything by removing the downsides! Opposing something that will help others just because you don't need it despite the fact that it will cost you literally nothing is just plain selfish and ridiculous. People should not be punished for BUILDING WHAT THEY WANT IN A SANDBOX GAME. You have literally no excuse to oppose this. There are literally no downsides. But you oppose it just because it won't benefit you. That's like saying other people shouldn't give money to charity because you won;t benefit from it. you will lose nothing if this is implemented. It is objectively good. Why are you so adamant about forcing people to stifle their creativity and taking away their choice?!
 
As much as I am...displeased with the town system, I would like to add in my two cents and say pylons are a blessing.

Honestly things would of been so much better if towns were never brought up in the first place at Re-Logic HQ. Money has never really been a concern at least for me, but with the increased pricing of items with unhappy villagers money begins to become a worry. The way I see it, the only two good things that came out of the town system were pylons and encouraging people to build across the world. That’s it.

I’ll say this one more time (I’m really surprised almost no one else has mentioned it) the best way to keep everyone happy is to prevent villagers from selling their items above normal price.
 
Hah. This isn't my first rodeo with the whole town/happiness debate, so I guess I will keep this short.
- Pylons by itself already makes towns way, WAY better than castles and is already a big motivation for spreading out buildings. The price penalty for castles (and bonus for towns) is essentially a giant middle finger to castle builders. If I were behind this entire system I would make castles get the price bonus and towns get the pylon (with 0 penalty) instead of towns getting both.
- Happiness ensures that you will only group the same 4 NPCs on the same biome in all maps. I would kill it entirely since it limits creativity and leave the current dialogue as normal speech for flavor.

Though I will settle with removing the penalty.

(Bonus: It's very ironic that NPCs are unhappy with a well-decorated and lively castle but if you put them in a prison cell in the middle of nowhere with 3 other people they become extremely happy. One of these days I would build pylon stations with NPCs essentially being batteries and having their life forces sucked out of them to power the pylons. And you can't tell me that's unethical because they are happy.)
 
Last edited:
You can only have one pylon per biome, all the NPC's have to be happy to get a pylon, and only having 3 NPC's in one spot makes the game seem more lonely and empty. Again, just because you don't mind being forced to play the game a certain way, doesn't mean others don't. You literally have nothing to lose here. If the penalties are removed, you wouldn't even notice. All this would do is make the game better and more enjoyable for other players, but you keep opposing it for literally no good reason. Why are you so vehement against a change that will not affect you at all but will help other players enjoy the game more because it'll stop stifling their creativity?

"I don't mind it therefore everyone who does is a whiner if you don't like it don't play the game"
Or, hear me out, this is a novel idea here, how about we fix the game so everyone can enjoy it instead of arbitrarily punishing people for building things you don't like? If you like the system, you will not lose anything by removing the downsides! Opposing something that will help others just because you don't need it despite the fact that it will cost you literally nothing is just plain selfish and ridiculous. People should not be punished for BUILDING WHAT THEY WANT IN A SANDBOX GAME. You have literally no excuse to oppose this. There are literally no downsides. But you oppose it just because it won't benefit you. That's like saying other people shouldn't give money to charity because you won;t benefit from it. you will lose nothing if this is implemented. It is objectively good. Why are you so adamant about forcing people to stifle their creativity and taking away their choice?!
(Read it calmly for no misunderstanding)

First: it is my POV.
Second: the "don't play" was a joke.
Third: well, everything has penalties. They made the NPCs more humans with 1.4, meaning that they have likes and dislikes.
Forth(4°): I'm not taking away your choice, you can use shoeboxes, just make them bigger for better happiness.(I've mentioned it)
Fifth: I guess having NPCs far from each other is a lil bit sad, but when you can travel to them and their biome in 2 sec it changes a lot.

The majority of things that I say are in a "dramatic" form. Don't take it personal (read the last sentence on ()). Also only a small per- aham... don't expect to do anything on a game without consequences, they're the core on learning how it works. Without the penalties you don't learn the essence. Sure, it's not good to pay more but in a future POV, happiness is better (let's be honests here, without penalties there isn't rewards).
 
don't expect to do anything on a game without consequences, they're the core on learning how it works. Without the penalties you don't learn the essence. Sure, it's not good to pay more but in a future POV, happiness is better (let's be honests here, without penalties there isn't rewards).
The thing is: There was no happiness system in Terraria for many years. I started playing the game in 2012, and still have active maps that date back to 2013.
On one of those maps I have a ridiculously luxurious and roomy condo for all people, it has been expanded and improved over many years (I got over 4500 hours of game time, of which many were spent on this map), and it is, or well, was, a pit stop for when a new character of mine needs stuff, as well as being a huge storage area.
These new 'consequences' have been shoved into my face after many years of play. No rational person can defend this as being fair. It's basically a slap in the face from Red, telling me: Screw your old maps, you either need to start making a town from scratch or pay more taxes.

And the solution is so simple: Simply remove the penalty; leave the bonus intact. Everybody happy. Done. There is no logical reason why people'd be against that. No one loses here.

If this penalty system was included from day one, I wouldn't be complaining. Tossing it in there after almost a decade, yeah, that's seriously uncool.
It would be nice if Red would stop trolling around. I think someone else mentioned the torches already; thankfully that has been fixed at least.
 
And the solution is so simple: Simply remove the penalty; leave the bonus intact. Everybody happy. Done. There is no logical reason why people'd be against that. No one loses here.
Actually, one person loses here: Redigit. The reason the system was implemented in the first place was because Redigit wanted to see people spread out. Not because it was bad for gameplay for people to build a giant castles, but because he did not want to see them. I think we should have a discussion on how seriously misguided and dare I say it, childish that mindset is.
 
Actually, one person loses here: Redigit. The reason the system was implemented in the first place was because Redigit wanted to see people spread out. Not because it was bad for gameplay for people to build a giant castles, but because he did not want to see them. I think we should have a discussion on how seriously misguided and dare I say it, childish that mindset is.
Torch luck was also supposedly implemented because redigit didn’t like people not using the respective biome torches. Which would be fine, if the system **weren’t directly punishing** (or it was). Punishing not doing something is a horrible way to encourage it, in my opinion, because it just makes players feel restricted, and is the reason torch luck got so much backlash (besides the players not being told about it - luck wasn’t even in the changelog).
 
Torch luck was also supposedly implemented because redigit didn’t like people not using the respective biome torches. Which would be fine, if the system **weren’t directly punishing** (or it was). Punishing not doing something is a horrible way to encourage it, in my opinion, because it just makes players feel restricted, and is the reason torch luck got so much backlash (besides the players not being told about it - luck wasn’t even in the changelog).
Like, if the option is harmful to gameplay then obviously wanting to see less of it and then nerfing that option is acceptable. Black Spot allowing for effortless kiting of bosses WAS genuinely harmful to gameplay, and so the nerf to Black Spot was fine.

The problem is that building giant castles (and using different torches) doesn't remove any depth or challenge or strategy or decision-making from the game. The reason Redigit wanted to see less of these was because of his own personal preferences, which is again extremely misguided and borders on infantile.



What I WILL agree with is that building shoebox mountains does take away from the experience. It drastically lowers the amount of effort you need to make a functional housing area. Whether this option should be nerfed is a different discussion entirely (I don't think it should) but if SHOEBOXES was the target of the system, then I must say that I am baffled by the lack of thought and care put into how it was executed, and am willing to call its implementation "extremely incompetent."
 
Last edited:
Another thought on the topic, what if the whole penalty was added as a way to try to force people more out of their (pre 1.4) comfort zone, of building central bases (usually wooden prisons), to make more people discover how comfortable the pylon system is?

like, it's possible, that if there would been no punishments at all, somewhat less people would decided to make the initial first step towards trying to build more towns, and thus, getting the benefits of much easier traveling around, thanks to the pylons?

it's just a theory out of the blue though, and might be a stupid theory.
 
Another thought on the topic, what if the whole penalty was added as a way to try to force people more out of their (pre 1.4) comfort zone, of building central bases (usually wooden prisons),
No. We should not excuse it if it was implemented for this reason. Again, player freedom.

If the goal of the system was to make people put more effort into their houses, then we should not be praising the system whatsoever. Not only does it not even work since you can still build clusters of shoeboxes and still get pylons, but it also punishes people who DID put effort into their houses. The implementation was executed with complete incompetence if the goal was to make people work harder on their houses.
to make more people discover how comfortable the pylon system is?


like, it's possible, that if there would been no punishments at all, somewhat less people would decided to make the initial first step towards trying to build more towns, and thus, getting the benefits of much easier traveling around, thanks to the pylons?
This could have been rectified with NPCs strongly suggesting that they'd be happier in other places and that moving them there would be very much worth your while.

And regardless, that's the player's fault for missing out by choosing not to explore the other options. People who HAVE tried pylons and find that they want to keep building the way they always have should NOT be punished for looking into it but deciding otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Another thought on the topic, what if the whole penalty was added as a way to try to force people more out of their (pre 1.4) comfort zone, of building central bases (usually wooden prisons), to make more people discover how comfortable the pylon system is?

like, it's possible, that if there would been no punishments at all, somewhat less people would decided to make the initial first step towards trying to build more towns, and thus, getting the benefits of much easier traveling around, thanks to the pylons?

it's just a theory out of the blue though, and might be a stupid theory.

To have people discover how comfortable the pylon system is it'd have been enough to just not increase prices, since the pylons are a reward on their own.
People who want to teleport around in easy mode have the choice to create multiple towns, while people that don't find that aspect important can keep building their condos without actually being punished. Everybody happy.
If less people would go for creating a pylon system if they weren't penalized with increased prices, then why would Red care? If he does then he shouldn't; it's a completely irrational thing to do.

For me, I don't really care about pylons; they are only temporarily useful anyway, since teleporters are vastly superior. (Being able to teleport during boss fights, not being limited to an amount, taking up less space, being able to hide them in the background, etc.).
 
Another thought on the topic, what if the whole penalty was added as a way to try to force people more out of their (pre 1.4) comfort zone, of building central bases (usually wooden prisons), to make more people discover how comfortable the pylon system is?
I mean I would say that a pre-hardmode teleporting system that doesn't take a :red: ton of money and an hour or more to setup would instantly cue people in on how amazing the pylon system is. The penalty is unnecessary.

They made the NPCs more humans with 1.4, meaning that they have likes and dislikes.
Their banter upon talking to them makes them more human than whatever this arbitrary biome and neighbor checkbox nonsense is. See my comment above about unhappy being in a castle vs extreme happiness in prison cells.

don't expect to do anything on a game without consequences, they're the core on learning how it works
Please give us a good reason why there should be consequences for building a big central base.
 
I dunno if - in that logic, if it was made to force players to try pylons - the penalty is completely unnecessary, though I do agree, that if players don't care, then they shouldn't be penalized. what I meant is more like, if you would just built another NPC prison when 1.4. came out, instead of going for trying out the pylons. that's what I meant. because, players at that point would likely notice the nonsensical prices, and wonder "wait, this is bad, I have to do something about this" and in the process, they find out how convinient pylons are.

In that regards, the system at the very start, could been somewhat justified (even if thinking deeper about it, there can't be many players who don't read the wiki, and, thus, if you do read it, you would learn about pylons anyway.)
However the "justified at the start of 1.4" also means, that it could be discarded now, as it likely serves no such purpose anymore, because most players should already know pylons well enough, and new players will very likely use the wiki too, thus learn about them.


By the way, it is understandable that housing "quaity" does not affects happiness - even if it's ridicoulous that someone's happier in a prison cell in the middle of nowhere, just because have the preffered biome and neighbors, than a fancy house or castle, but
If the furnitures, deco, anything would affect the NPC's happiness, that would seriously restrict player creativity on building, so, that's obviously not really an option.
Which leaves it to player, what they build. If they want to build fancy stuff, or they just build shoeboxes (or an in-between way, build shoeboxes first, and then upgrade them along the way into fancier stuff.)

But it is arguable if it's 100% a sandbox. you do are restricted by a few things with housing, e.g. housings need table & chair & light source (or to be more precise, flat-surface item, comfort item, and valid light source). then, normally, only one NPC can be housed in a housing, and things like size does not matters regarding it.
These and surely some other things too (like corruption/crimson being invalid for housing) are all restrictions too, so, it's not exactly 100% "you do whatever you want" - of course, you do can build a castle in the crimson too, but NPCs won't likely live there (the only way to do so, if it's high above enough, which is because it's not the crimson biome anymore)

The great difference is probably that, that these restrictions are there since ages, so we all take it for granted, that you can't just, for example house 2 NPCs in the same room (alas, that one's actually not true, because it can be turned into two "housings" with a column of platforms or such.) but you still need the required furnitures, even if you have quite the freedom with what furnitures you place there.
As some said too, if the happyness system would been there since the start, we would take that for granted too.


Anyway, I'm not really trying to defend it, I see that it's unfair, I'm just wondering, there must been some sort of reason it was initially implemented, such as to try to get people to discover how convinient pylons are.
Plus, would abolishing the punishment completely solve the situation?
It worked with torch luck though, so maybe it would. But it just makes me wonder, the abolishing of the penalty would make some people then grumble about "so I have to build in a certain way to get bonuses? I want bonuses, but this is a sandbox game, how you dare to tell me how and what to build?! give me all the bonuses everyone else gets, and leave me build whatever I want, whatever way I want." - and I think, the ones to complain are likely those who just tends to build lazy prisons, not those who put effort into their magnificent castles.

And even if the pricing punishment would be abolished, the happiness system is broken in other ways too, like the neighbor detect range. And, they were actually tinkering with it, at some point, they raised it to 50, which I considered a highly welcome change, but then they decided to change it back to 25, and now the dwarf again resides in the bathroom of the tavern...

Having the detection range lowered back there might helped to lessen the penalty a bit for those who build castles, but if you build towns, it is super resticting, because, you just can't have people live in their own houses, and be neighbors, but they end up living in the other's bathroom or whatever other room. Because, if you move them just a bit farther, they won't recognise each other as neighbors, even if they meet and chit-chat every day outside of their houses.


So, guess the "problem" there is, that there are 2 (or likely more) building styles, that each have its own preferred settings that would go well with them.
Castle builders want all their NPCs in one big castle, and now are punished with high prices for no apparent reason (I agree with everyone saying it's bad, I was only wondering, it might initially served a purpose, but now it doesn't quite serves that anymore)
Town builders want the NPCs spread out more, and are punished by the NPCs ridicolously small neighbor detect range.
Hmm...
Actually, if the entire punishment on pricing would be abolished, would it work, if the neighbor detect range would be raised again? (there surely would be people grumbling about that too though) considering, if you wouldn't been punished for having NPCs detecting there are tons of neighbors around, they could freely have much bigger detect range - but if too big, that might again be bad, because then they might detect people who they dislike even though they live quite far.

So, in that regards, what would be a neighbor detect range, that would work for most players? (an alternative way would be, again, to have it toggleable, but that might be complicated too)
 
I mean I would say that a pre-hardmode teleporting system that doesn't take a :red: ton of money and an hour or more to setup would instantly cue people in on how amazing the pylon system is. The penalty is unnecessary.


Their banter upon talking to them makes them more human than whatever this arbitrary biome and neighbor checkbox nonsense is. See my comment above about unhappy being in a castle vs extreme happiness in prison cells.


Please give us a good reason why there should be consequences for building a big central base.
Build the castle on journey, or make a map only for the castle instead of building on your gameplay world (even if it shows how much you hard work you have there, or just simply to be nice) you can also build one but not letting all NPCs live there, or let them live and change their homes when you want to buy stuff.

I guess the happiness system would complement pylons (especially because they only work when NPCs are nearby), as for the penalties (yes, I have built shoeboxes skyscrapers) I guess they're fine, at least for me. It's not like it helps (not really), it just has ups and downs as everything.

Honorable mention to torch "bad luck": this makes no sense because they're light sources, but also the luck that you get doesn't make sense, anyway it was annoying for Everybody ((everybody, not somebody), as for happiness some like and some dont)

A good reason... The happines system!
Now for real there's no "good reason" less than: "why would they lower the price by half for you because you made a shoebox hotel and put everybody there?". That would be free discount basically and you know that it doesn't make sense (at least I think you know).
 
Build the castle on journey, or make a map only for the castle instead of building on your gameplay world (even if it shows how much you hard work you have there, or just simply to be nice) you can also build one but not letting all NPCs live there, or let them live and change their homes when you want to buy stuff.
What if I want to build it in a playthrough? I always have, and I always enjoyed it. It was a beacon of progress, to see all those NPCs there and all of the different parts I had added throughout the adventure.

I guess the happiness system would complement pylons (especially because they only work when NPCs are nearby), as for the penalties (yes, I have built shoeboxes skyscrapers) I guess they're fine, at least for me. It's not like it helps (not really), it just has ups and downs as everything.
Ah yes the classic "It doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother anyone else." I'm not going to address how ridiculous that argument is because it should be plain as day.

As for ups and downs, I don't think you understand the purpose of ups and downs. Currently, spreading your NPCs out has almost zero downs, and pretty much only positives, where building a giant central base has very few upsides.

"Ups and Downs" means there's pros and cons for each option that the player needs to consider when choosing. Currently pylons have only upsides and Giant Castles have only downsides. There is no real decision to be made here. If you want to be rewarded, you will pick pylons. There is no extrinsic reason to choose a giant castle.

You choose one and you get immense rewards, you choose the other and you are ONLY punished. Pros and Cons are used to create nuanced decisions, and this is hardly a decision at all.

"Do you want candy? Or do you want to get slapped?"


Honorable mention to torch "bad luck": this makes no sense because they're light sources, but also the luck that you get doesn't make sense, anyway it was annoying for Everybody ((everybody, not somebody), as for happiness some like and some don't)
It wasn't annoying to the people who went out of their way to make and use the biome torches, which is the exact thing that's happening here: It's not annoying to anyone willing to make use of the system.

The bigger problem was that being punished for placing the wrong torches doesn't make any sense. Running into an attack and being punished by taking damage makes sense because that is an attack's purpose: to force the player to avoid it or come closer to losing the battle. You cannot say the same thing about Torches.

You CAN say the same thing about NPC happiness, though. But if that was the goal, then the system was implemented with immense failure. What SHOULD be punished, if anything, is low-effort housing. Humans living in drab houses are obviously not going to be as chipper as someone living in a luxury apartment. However, that is not what is being punished here.

What IS being punished here is multiple NPCs being close together, which DOESN'T make any sense considering humans are inherently social creatures, and that a wide majority of people would be absolutely thrilled to live with others in a huge, lavish, well-decorated castle.

So PLEASE tell me why I deserve to be punished for building this. Please tell me, as nobody has done so yet and if I'm honest with you, nobody is going to.
Capture 2020-03-25 16_40_03.png

If your problem is the amount of effort I put into it, please look at the :red:ing picture. That build took me and a friend nearly 4 total hours to build over the course of our playthrough.

A good reason... The happines system!
Now for real there's no "good reason" less than: "why would they lower the price by half for you because you made a shoebox hotel and put everybody there?". That would be free discount basically and you know that it doesn't make sense (at least I think you know).
Sounds pretty hypocritical considering that you can still make shoebox setups for pylons. In fact if anything building shoebox setups for pylons is even easier than building a central shoebox complex since you don't need to make as many.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom