Game Mechanics The Problem With NPC Happiness

[Snickerbobble]

Fine. I’ve tried to compromise with you too, and you also have ignored my points and dismissed my requests for details.

In the end, I’ve come out of this with the comfort that you’re overpowered, over complicated suggestion isn’t going to be implemented... and never will. You just kept adding and adding to your idea to the point that it would break the game, all in the name of “fairness”. I am sooo glad you aren’t a part of ReLogic’s team, because you clearly have no idea how video games or game design is supposed to work.

Good day.

You tried to compromise with another exclusive bonus when I'm wanting no exclusive bonuses on build style. You tried to compromise by giving something I do not want.

It is you who ignored my points. I have addressed yours, again, you hyper-focused on my one NPC idea and ignored the rest, and tried to ridicule me on that one idea of a few. You ignored the rest, so it is you who ignores. I have answered all of your points, if you'd like, share me one I did ignore. I have countlessly brought up the ones you have ignored. You ignore, not me.

It only became "overpowered" when I tried to give you what you wanted, so I guess what you desire is what breaks the game.

I have no experience in making videogames, but I do account for other players, which you seem unable to do. Terraria has changed a lot and often for the better- there have been many changes made to account for builder play style. This was a step in the reverse. Maybe they won't fix it, but who knows. Things tend to not be set in stone in this game, at least not until development truly ends.

In the future, you might do well addressing every point someone offers you, not single out one you find ridiculous and conveniently ignore the rest. This will lead to more productive, more honest debates on your side.

Good day to you too.

 

[yudgefudge]

Here's what I think: remove increases, keep decreases. So there's still an incentive, but no punishment.

And happiness totally characterizes NPCs! Since I put time into my houses, I love seeing my Zoologist scream "Yas!" in appreciation for putting her in the Forest and keeping her happy, or the Guide "gently appreciating" the space, or the Demolitionist "being drawn to the Underground". It makes the NPCs more than walking vending machines because I actually talk to them and make sure they're doing okay.

 

[Flubman]

Fine. I’ve tried to compromise with you too, and you also have ignored my points and dismissed my requests for details.

In the end, I’ve come out of this with the comfort that you’re overpowered, over complicated suggestion isn’t going to be implemented... and never will. You just kept adding and adding to your idea to the point that it would break the game, all in the name of “fairness”. I am sooo glad you aren’t a part of ReLogic’s team, because you clearly have no idea how video games or game design is supposed to work.

Good day.

Could you please lay out all your major points in one post so that I can debate you more easily?

 

[PixelPatcher]

Here's what I think: remove increases, keep decreases. So there's still an incentive, but no punishment.

And happiness totally characterizes NPCs! Since I put time into my houses, I love seeing my Zoologist scream "Yas!" in appreciation for putting her in the Forest and keeping her happy, or the Guide "gently appreciating" the space, or the Demolitionist "being drawn to the Underground". It makes the NPCs more than walking vending machines because I actually talk to them and make sure they're doing okay.

I am perfectly fine with that. As I said before, it isn't game-breaking.

Even better, here is a system Mihn and I came up with that seems to satisfy most people:

Here is my vision for how pylons should work:

Obtaining: It really doesn't matter. Trading with NPCs, crafting, looting, whatever! Anything works, as long as they are relatively easy to obtain.

Requirements: Kept as is, 2 NPCs in the immediate vicinity to use. No requirements to place.

Benefits: Teleportation to other active pylons as well as a happiness boost to nearby NPCs that increases as the number of affected NPCs increases.

I think this system provides equally enticing benefits for both clumpers and spreaders. You may disagree, but no solution will satisfy everyone.

This system will give a price decrease to very large collections of NPCs (maybe 12 or more) that becomes the ideal strategy late-game, while keeping the many small towns as best early-game.

And here is why I think this system is the best we can do:

First off, that first statement of yours is entirely subjective and I have seen people say the exact opposite. (I can't find the post, but I will edit it in here when and if I find it.)

You're missing my point, I'm not saying we need to add restrictions, I'm saying it isn't possible to remove them. It is an unsolvable problem:

First, spreaders have an inherent disadvantage because they want to spread out their NPCs, making them hard to access. This is a restriction on build style that can't be fixed unless we add something.

So, to counteract this, pylons were added to allow for spreaders to have easy access to their NPCs despite them being farther from spawn.

However, now people argue that these pylons also provide an unfair advantage to spreaders by letting them access the world much more easily.

So what do we do now? We could, as you suggest, let clumpers use the pylons too, but since they only have one fixed pylon, they now have more QoL access to their world than spreaders do.

What I'm suggesting is we give clumpers some unrelated advantage that balances out the benefit from pylons. I never said this was the ideal solution, but it is the best we can do given the constraints of fairness and good game design.

Notice that this balance is entirely subjective. Some clumpers might be satisfied with reduced prices, but others, like you, might want more. Unfortunately this problem is unsolvable because the inherent disadvantage we started with (spreaders having difficult access to their NPCs) can't be removed. The best we can do is balance it as best as possible, and that choice is up to the community at large as well as the developers.

We need to find some benefit that satisfies as many clumpers as possible without making too many spreaders think that it gives clumping an unfair advantage.

After posting this, I will make a new thread about this change specifically.

Note: "Spreaders" refer to people like me who prefer our NPCs in many different locations, "clumpers" are people who want the opposite.

Could you please lay out all your major points in one post so that I can debate you more easily?

Here are my main points:

1. I am fine with modifying the happiness system, I have even proposed one modification (see my response to Danny Ω).
2. I am not fine with snickerbobble's request. He wants to completely dettach pylons from NPCs because he thinks this will make the game more fair. Although he has the right reasons, he has failed to provide any system that does this without making pylons an overpowered mechanic. The overhead of setting up NPCs is what makes pylons a reasonable early-game item, dettaching them from NPCs not only contradicts their very pont, but also makes them easy to abuse (like so):

Here is my position on the Pylons:

The ReLogic Team did not intend for them to replace teleporters. I know this is an argument from authority, so I will try to explain why I think unlocking the pylons would break the game, at least partially.

If Pylons require no NPCs near them, then moving them to other places becomes extremely trivial.

Just keep one of each Pylon in your piggy bank. Whenever you want to leave a "checkpoint", just place one down.

I find that trivializes the already-trivial punishment for dying. You no longer have to worry about dying, just place down the universal pylon whenever you are about to die.
Then you can teleport to where you died, and just resume, nothing lost, not even time.

The reason I oppose unlocking pylons has nothing to do with the various play styles and everything to do with these sorts of game-breaking "hacks" you could do, regardless of the play styls.

Here is a suggestion that should make both of us happy:

Instead of NPCs, there should be some other thing, maybe a block, or some sort of building requirements around the pylons (maybe use valid NPC houses instead of the NPCs themselves). Only then can you use the pylons. This allows you to use them regardless of play style, but prevents the hacks that I stated above.

There is currently no system that let's you do anything like this for free. (There is that new potion, but it's not free.)

 

[Flubman]

Here are my main points:

1. I am fine with modifying the happiness system, I have even proposed one modification (see my response to Danny Ω).
2. I am not fine with snickerbobble's request. He wants to completely dettach pylons from NPCs because he thinks this will make the game more fair. Although he has the right reasons, he has failed to provide any system that does this without making pylons an overpowered mechanic. The overhead of setting up NPCs is what makes pylons a reasonable early-game item, dettaching them from NPCs not only contradicts their very pont, but also makes them easy to abuse (like so):

That solution is interesting, but it seems more flawed than simply removing happiness-based price increases. This is mainly because having to make two sets of bases per playthrough sounds annoying. It would also probably be harder to implement and test than getting rid of happiness-based price increases.

I do agree that not locking pylons behind NPCs would probably be too radical.

 

[PixelPatcher]

That solution is interesting, but it seems more flawed than simply removing happiness-based price increases. This is mainly because having to make two sets of bases per playthrough sounds annoying. It would also probably be harder to implement and test than getting rid of happiness-based price increases.

That's perfectly fine, and your solution is indeed the simplest solution. I just personally find my solution to be a little more interesting, which is why I prefer it.

Edit: By "interesting", I mean it requires more forethought and planning to fully take advantage of. I personally find systems like this to be very fun to use and I LOVE trying to find optimal solutions to them.

 

[Lexxnech]

I am shocked with the voting results in this thread. I understand that not everyone wants to build something large. But it seems that majority of people here thinks that there should be only one "valid" way of building - a number of small houses scattered around the world. Large castle? Giant Flying ship? Space station? Underwater base? Gargant replica? The voting result says - nobody should ever build these. Its undesired behavior and its good that game actually punishing it.
This system is not about "beautiful small houses" vs "giant ugly prison". People who don't want to spend time building something beautiful will just build many small 3-room woodendirt boxes with one table one chair and one torch with optimal npc combinations. But creative freedom actually suffers from this penalty.

 

[smeagolheart]

I am shocked with the voting results in this thread. I understand that not everyone wants to build something large. But it seems that majority of people here thinks that there should be only one "valid" way of building - a number of small houses scattered around the world. Large castle? Giant Flying ship? Space station? Underwater base? Gargant replica? The voting result says - nobody should ever build these. Its undesired behavior and its good that game actually punishing it.
This system is not about "beautiful small houses" vs "giant ugly prison". People who don't want to spend time building something beautiful will just build many small 3-room woodendirt boxes with one table one chair and one torch with optimal npc combinations. But creative freedom actually suffers from this penalty.

Not only that but certain key NPCs must be with certain other pairs in certain biomes to get the optimal setup so you are locked in to certain pairs in certain biomes.

 

[Flubman]

I am shocked with the voting results in this thread. I understand that not everyone wants to build something large. But it seems that majority of people here thinks that there should be only one "valid" way of building - a number of small houses scattered around the world. Large castle? Giant Flying ship? Space station? Underwater base? Gargant replica? The voting result says - nobody should ever build these. Its undesired behavior and its good that game actually punishing it.
This system is not about "beautiful small houses" vs "giant ugly prison". People who don't want to spend time building something beautiful will just build many small 3-room woodendirt boxes with one table one chair and one torch with optimal npc combinations. But creative freedom actually suffers from this penalty.

Yeah, I'm also surprised at the voting results, and I think the people in this thread who support happiness-based price increases have failed to produce a good argument that justifies the mechanic.

 

[Top Gun]

I don't even mind being cut off from accessing the Pylon system if I don't bother with making the NPCs happy. Even in pre-Hardmode it doesn't take all that long to get anywhere I'm interested in, especially with a few basic accessories like boots or a slime mount. If I want fast travel, I can rig up a few teleporters. I've done it before, and I can deal with it.

But to say that someone should be actively punished for playing the game the same way they have for 6 or 7 years...there's no justification for that. It's just not right.

 

[Flubman]

If any devs look at this, I hope they don't just look at the poll results; I hope they take people's arguments into account.

 

[Derunih]

I'd like to throw my clarification in: I support price increases in **extreme** example (The classic 3x10 prison cells), so I voted no.
BUT.
I still hate the crowding mechanic! I find it too restrictive, the limit is too low, and the range is pretty harsh when building a tower. I think the problem with the voting results is, you have only given 2 options: Unhappiness is currently fine, or unhappiness should be removed. You have no option for unhappiness should stay, but be changed. That's where my vote would go.

 

[Flubman]

I'd like to throw my clarification in: I support price increases in **extreme** example (The classic 3x10 prison cells), so I voted no.
BUT.
I still hate the crowding mechanic! I find it too restrictive, the limit is too low, and the range is pretty harsh when building a tower. I think the problem with the voting results is, you have only given 2 options: Unhappiness is currently fine, or unhappiness should be removed. You have no option for unhappiness should stay, but be changed. That's where my vote would go.

But that isn't the question the poll asks. It's "Would you get rid of happiness-based price increases?", not "Would you get rid of unhappiness?".

 

[Derunih]

But that isn't the question the poll asks. It's "Would you get rid of happiness-based price increases?", not "Would you get rid of unhappiness?".

To which, my answer is still "no". Placing NPCs next to people they hate sounds like a fair reason for a price increase. Using the narrow cells sounds like a fair reason too.
But, the core of what is being discussed here, in that it limits central towns, I still dislike. I loved having one central base where I could keep my NPCs safe, and the option to have that should come back (As long as you are mindful of NPC roommates not getting into fights!)

 

[Flubman]

To which, my answer is still "no". Placing NPCs next to people they hate sounds like a fair reason for a price increase. Using the narrow cells sounds like a fair reason too.
But, the core of what is being discussed here, in that it limits central towns, I still dislike. I loved having one central base where I could keep my NPCs safe, and the option to have that should come back (As long as you are mindful of NPC roommates not getting into fights!)

While not the solution I would go with, your solution would still improve the happiness mechanic considerably.

 

[jaquiow]

It'd be nice if this feature were considered optional, and could be turned on or off at world creation. You don't have to have these pylons though they're quite convenient once you've figured out who has to be paired with whom and avoid the back-of-the-hand ruler slap the game gives you for not building it's way. I happen to like having everyone in one place, not scattered about and having to pretend i'm back in the second grade, passing papers around with the words, "Do you like <name>? Check yes/no".

My biggest complaint about it is that you can't use the pylons during boss fights, but if you're hoping to use one to get a lot closer to a certain Wall of Flesh that's troll-a-rolling along the underworld, you get told to "eliminate the current threat before you can use the Pylon Network". The Wall doesn't move that fast but going from the surface to the bottom still takes time, and if you can't use this Network whenever you want, what's the purpose of it at all?

It's only convenient when you don't actually have a need to be somewhere. If it can't be used all the time, and since many players don't feel they want to waste time playing Cupid, make it optional at world creation. As others have already stated, NPCs can prefer certain biomes and that's fine, but we shouldn't have to practically marry them off, either.

 

[lukebytes]

Here's what I think: remove increases, keep decreases. So there's still an incentive, but no punishment.

And happiness totally characterizes NPCs! Since I put time into my houses, I love seeing my Zoologist scream "Yas!" in appreciation for putting her in the Forest and keeping her happy, or the Guide "gently appreciating" the space, or the Demolitionist "being drawn to the Underground". It makes the NPCs more than walking vending machines because I actually talk to them and make sure they're doing okay.

And we came full circle.

Now to talk about some of my qualms with this thread:

Snickerbobble: I don't think you understand the balance of quality of life and game design. As pixelpatcher said, your suggestion would be way overpowered, but let me explain to you why; it breaks the games progression. It seems like everyone is forgetting or at least forgetting why terraria isn't just a sandbox. In the very first trailer, first saying the words "create your world...and then defend it!", shows another aspect about the game; exploring, which would be woefully damaged by this change. you can just go to the jungle or the underworld to grab the possible items you need to become a beast. There's quality of life, and then there's skipping the process of getting there. You did suggest requiring beating a boss and only one npc per pylon but i also take a bit of issue with this, although it does have some good. For bosses, higher mode players would be at a severe disadvantage, since expert and master mode bosses are obviously way harder. A solution though would be to allow use but limit the pylon via requiring an npc or have a cooldown. one npc per pylon too would still put a strain leaving about two full towns but ill let this slide since it's an attempt at a compromise. From a builders point of view, i completely agree with your suggestion. There's no inherent advantage or disadvantage spreaders or clumpers have and they can live in harmony knowing they only benefit from this. But from a realistic game design stance, it's simply not achievable without damaging the progression.

A solution iv'e come up with is a dynamic system. First, (this doesn't have to be done) the pylon is a plant. This is so that you can't just teleport as soon as you place it. Cavern pylons also take longer to grow and fall under the same rules as gemcornes. Second, pylons have a cooldown system that starts depending a little on the height. it lowers as the game progresses through pre hardmode. Defeat a certain number of creatures in that biome, beat a boss, get to a certain point in the game, (like allowing your pylon to be placed in the cavern layer after entering hell or kiling eater of worlds) or use npcs. When you defeat the wall of flesh, cooldowns will reduce significantly and (if you did those other things) pylons are free teleport devices with zero npcs necessary. Perfect since teleporters aren't so far away.

This system balances around the progression of ridding of an inconvenience. At the start, pylons aren't all that useful unless you put npcs next to them. You still have little choice in the matter. You either spread the npcs or kiss the initial reductions goodbye. But this time, it's not mandatory to do so, its just to get a boost. And as you play pre hardmode, It reduces. At the end, you can finally have your interconnected city or city with multiple exits.

Before i'm done, i want to state that i don't think an interconnected city could ever work as well in vanilla terraria as Re Logic hoped. There's 23 total housable npcs, and 8 pylons excluding the universal one. Doing the math, you have room for maybe two towns. The rest are just tiny homes. This is why i hope mods come to 1.4 eventually, cause mods like thorium and alchemist with a good chunck of npcs are the only way this interconnected city idea will give people the freedom they seek.

Also, in case anyone asked, yes, remove the price increase.

 

[Snickerbobble]

And we came full circle.

Now to talk about some of my qualms with this thread:

Snickerbobble: I don't think you understand the balance of quality of life and game design. As pixelpatcher said, your suggestion would be way overpowered, but let me explain to you why; it breaks the games progression. It seems like everyone is forgetting or at least forgetting why terraria isn't just a sandbox. In the very first trailer, first saying the words "create your world...and then defend it!", shows another aspect about the game; exploring, which would be woefully damaged by this change. you can just go to the jungle or the underworld to grab the possible items you need to become a beast. There's quality of life, and then there's skipping the process of getting there. You did suggest requiring beating a boss and only one npc per pylon but i also take a bit of issue with this, although it does have some good. For bosses, higher mode players would be at a severe disadvantage, since expert and master mode bosses are obviously way harder. A solution though would be to allow use but limit the pylon via requiring an npc or have a cooldown. one npc per pylon too would still put a strain leaving about two full towns but ill let this slide since it's an attempt at a compromise. From a builders point of view, i completely agree with your suggestion. There's no inherent advantage or disadvantage spreaders or clumpers have and they can live in harmony knowing they only benefit from this. But from a realistic game design stance, it's simply not achievable without damaging the progression.

A solution iv'e come up with is a dynamic system. First, (this doesn't have to be done) the pylon is a plant. This is so that you can't just teleport as soon as you place it. Cavern pylons also take longer to grow and fall under the same rules as gemcornes. Second, pylons have a cooldown system that starts depending a little on the height. it lowers as the game progresses through pre hardmode. Defeat a certain number of creatures in that biome, beat a boss, get to a certain point in the game, (like allowing your pylon to be placed in the cavern layer after entering hell or kiling eater of worlds) or use npcs. When you defeat the wall of flesh, cooldowns will reduce significantly and (if you did those other things) pylons are free teleport devices with zero npcs necessary. Perfect since teleporters aren't so far away.

This system balances around the progression of ridding of an inconvenience. At the start, pylons aren't all that useful unless you put npcs next to them. You still have little choice in the matter. You either spread the npcs or kiss the initial reductions goodbye. But this time, it's not mandatory to do so, its just to get a boost. And as you play pre hardmode, It reduces. At the end, you can finally have your interconnected city or city with multiple exits.

Before i'm done, i want to state that i don't think an interconnected city could ever work as well in vanilla terraria as Re Logic hoped. There's 23 total housable npcs, and 8 pylons excluding the universal one. Doing the math, you have room for maybe two towns. The rest are just tiny homes. This is why i hope mods come to 1.4 eventually, cause mods like thorium and alchemist with a good chunck of npcs are the only way this interconnected city idea will give people the freedom they seek.

Also, in case anyone asked, yes, remove the price increase.

I don't think mine would be overpowered since the current system allows far easier access to pylons as opposed to what I'm suggesting. It takes more effort to explore biomes, finding spare magic mirrors (since you'd probably want to keep the first), and beating bosses/tougher enemies than to set up tiny box homes and assign NPCs to them. If anything, the current method "clashes" more with game balance, just due to how easy they are to acquire, but as they exist, the game hasn't seemed to implode on itself. I was kind of surprised HOW easy pylons are to acquire, they just require a set way to home NPCs. I'd rather have a challenge to unlock them, not have a restriction on building that allows super easy acquisition.

And yes, I get part of the game is exploring, which I think is another point in favor of my idea, since again the current system allows easy box home set-up and you get a teleport there.

You don't even have to explore the biome beyond crossing its surface now, you don't even need to defeat a single enemy, nor collect a single resource from the biome, but you can still get your warp to it anyway.

With my idea, you have to explore the biome, gather its resources, defeat its enemies.. and possibly even a boss or certain enemy first, to get its pylon. On average, my method would make Pylons a mid to late pre-hardmode and early hardmode system, but currently the system is a very early pre-hardmode system. Very minimal exploration needed now- Pick a dye plant, get 50 silver, find one life crystal, and find one bomb, can be done within 10 minutes and allows warps to biomes you've never set foot in.

For those who choose a harder difficulty.. I mean, they did pick a harder difficulty. Higher difficulties should be balanced around the base game, not the other way around.

As for them needing to grow.. I guess? I thought my system put enough of an unlock system in place, much more than the current system's. I was thinking as for pylon progression, you'd gain more biome pylons through the course of the game, such as a Sand Elemental defeat for a desert pylon, and Queen Slime (and/or alternative EoL) for a Hallow one. Queen Bee is skippable, but giving her defeat (along with Plantera's) may give the player more reason to defeat her to unlock the Jungle pylon, especially with its significance in hardmode.

I don't have much experience in making games, but I've gone several years thinking of ideas and how to balance them. I don't know why some who disagree with me on this one topic claim I have no sense of game balance, especially considering how the current system of the topic in question is far easier to obtain than how I'd like them to be unlocked. They are easy but restricting right now, and I'd like them to be at least a moderate challenge along with uplifting the arbitrary restriction on them.

 

[Flubman]

The option to remove the happiness-based price increases suddenly started winning a while ago, and I don't know why.

 

[smeagolheart]

It's a price increase and a sell price decrease unless you build in exactly one configuration, no wonder it's unpopular.