Game Mechanics The Problem With NPC Happiness

[Heroman3003]

IMO, biggest issue is overcrowding being too easy to achieve. Most NPCs should have much looser overcrowding restrictions than now and some should have none at all (while a few could keep current numbers). That would allow much more wiggle room while still making the hotelblocks type builds something that causes an increase.

 

[Flubman]

IMO, biggest issue is overcrowding being too easy to achieve. Most NPCs should have much looser overcrowding restrictions than now and some should have none at all (while a few could keep current numbers). That would allow much more wiggle room while still making the hotelblocks type builds something that causes an increase.

Yeah, I mentioned that solution, and I still think it would be good.

 

[QUEENOFCHICKENS]

i agree, cus, i do love it when my npcs get together, have a little chat and play scissors,paper rock, i like them having parties and i would prefer parties with more than just two people.

 

[Talerax]

Games are all about challenge. NPC happiness is a challenge you, as a player, needs to overcome.

If we remove any impact happiness has on the core game. It ceases to have any real meaning, and the average player will just ignore it. This will also remove any reward for overcoming the challenge of making all your NPCs happy.

At their core, games need to make the player feel like their actions have consequences, both good and bad. Removing any consequences from any system in the game will effectively remove that system from the game entirely.

If it is the mechanic long since the first time I played Terraria, like having to build a house for NPC, I can accept it, or else I won't be here as an old player.
New mechanic which change or affect the previous mechanic should be in form of QoL so I won't enjoy the game less. The only negative change that I think it can be accepted is the balance change to op stuffs or exploit. Building big town should not get this kind of treatment.

 

[Flubman]

Games are all about challenge. NPC happiness is a challenge you, as a player, needs to overcome.

If we remove any impact happiness has on the core game. It ceases to have any real meaning, and the average player will just ignore it. This will also remove any reward for overcoming the challenge of making all your NPCs happy.

At their core, games need to make the player feel like their actions have consequences, both good and bad. Removing any consequences from any system in the game will effectively remove that system from the game entirely.

I would also like to add something to my point that applies to games in general: If the player didn't sign up for it, don't make it hard. One of game developer Michael Stout's biggest regrets with the acclaimed Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal was that he made the 2D, Mega Man-esque platforming sections too hard. He said no one plays a 3D platformer/action-adventure game for a Mega Man-like minigame that demands the player's full attention. This is similar to happiness-based base-building in Terraria because plenty of players signed up for Terraria without signing up for its base-building aspect. All they care about is the game's action-adventure aspect. Why should they be punished for not engaging in something they didn't want to bother with and didn't have to bother with until 1.4?

Granted, dealing with the happiness system isn't hard, but it's more trouble than a lot of players would like to go through.

 

[PixelPatcher]

I would also like to add something to my point that applies to games in general: If the player didn't sign up for it, don't make it hard. One of game developer Michael Stout's biggest regrets with the acclaimed Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal was that he made the 2D, Mega Man-esque platforming sections too hard. He said no one plays a 3D platformer/action-adventure game for a Mega Man-like minigame that demands the player's full attention. This is similar to happiness-based base-building in Terraria because plenty of players signed up for Terraria without signing up for its base-building aspect. All they care about is the game's action-adventure aspect. Why should they be punished for not engaging in something they didn't want to bother with and didn't have to bother with until 1.4?

Granted, dealing with the happiness system isn't hard, but it's more trouble than a lot of players would like to go through.

To a certain extent, you can make this point about almost any change. Any major change in a game will favor some play styles over others, and that is what is happening here.
You can still make shoeboxes, the NPCs will still live in them, and you can still trade with them, you just get worse trades. This doesn't really affect your ability to play the game. I find I get way too much money anyway.

Even if you don't want to get penalized. It isn't that hard to make the NPCs happy, just put a pylon in their preferred biome, and build a slightly larger shoebox next to it. I think this would be a net positive since you get to teleport using the pylons, which you wouldn't be able to do if you didn't put the NPCs next to them. I don't think this is any inconvenience.

Edit: On top of this, the base-building aspect of the game has been there since the very beginning, or at least for a long time (I only started playing in 1.2), the happiness system doesn't force you to build nice houses, you can still build pretty much the same houses you could before. You just need to make them slightly larger and spread them out a bit. I'd hardly consider this forcing the players into base-building any more than the original system.

 

[Flubman]

To a certain extent, you can make this point about almost any change. Any major change in a game will favor some play styles over others, and that is what is happening here.
You can still make shoeboxes, the NPCs will still live in them, and you can still trade with them, you just get worse trades. This doesn't really affect your ability to play the game. I find I get way too much money anyway.

Even if you don't want to get penalized. It isn't that hard to make the NPCs happy, just put a pylon in their preferred biome, and build a slightly larger shoebox next to it. I think this would be a net positive since you get to teleport using the pylons, which you wouldn't be able to do if you didn't put the NPCs next to them.

Unlike you, I often find myself short on money thanks to the Tinkerer, and a lot of other players are the same way.

 

[Flubman]

To a certain extent, you can make this point about almost any change. Any major change in a game will favor some play styles over others, and that is what is happening here.
You can still make shoeboxes, the NPCs will still live in them, and you can still trade with them, you just get worse trades. This doesn't really affect your ability to play the game. I find I get way too much money anyway.

Even if you don't want to get penalized. It isn't that hard to make the NPCs happy, just put a pylon in their preferred biome, and build a slightly larger shoebox next to it. I think this would be a net positive since you get to teleport using the pylons, which you wouldn't be able to do if you didn't put the NPCs next to them. I don't think this is any inconvenience.

Edit: On top of this, the base-building aspect of the game has been there since the very beginning, or at least for a long time (I only started playing in 1.2), the happiness system doesn't force you to build nice houses, you can still build pretty much the same houses you could before. You just need to make them slightly larger and spread them out a bit. I'd hardly consider this forcing the players into base-building any more than the original system.

Sorry about the double post, but I'm fine with the pylons being a reward for people making the NPCs happy. There has to be some incentive.

It doesn't force players into base-building any more than the original system, but it does make it harder for them because it adds new restrictions.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding me. It's not that you're FORCED into doing it, but you're punished for not doing it.

Edit: I may have come off as a bit rude with that last statement, so I edited it.

 

[FibS]

• Good: Encourages players to spread NPCs around world in order to teleport with Pylons (which dramatically improve tedium)
• Bad: Pressures players to spread NPCs around a very specific way to avoid getting boned on shop prices

My primary suggestion is to add more ways to make the same NPC happy.

• Add more liked NPCs to everybody's list. (e.g. Dryad does not judge living things by age, so Angler likes her.)
• Every time two NPCs talk, their relationship should improve slightly. This can cause NPCs who dislike each other to gradually change to friends.
• Blocks with a certain tag or certain material should make some NPCs happy. For instance, Witch Doctor likes Bamboo blocks and furniture. This applies only to blocks inside the area recognized as the NPC's room.

 

[Flubman]

• Good: Encourages players to spread NPCs around world in order to teleport with Pylons (which dramatically improve tedium)
• Bad: Pressures players to spread NPCs around a very specific way to avoid getting boned on shop prices

My primary suggestion is to add more ways to make the same NPC happy.

• Add more liked NPCs to everybody's list. (e.g. Dryad does not judge living things by age, so Angler likes her.)
• Every time two NPCs talk, their relationship should improve slightly. This can cause NPCs who dislike each other to gradually change to friends.
• Blocks with a certain tag or certain material should make some NPCs happy. For instance, Witch Doctor likes Bamboo blocks and furniture. This applies only to blocks inside the area recognized as the NPC's room.

That last one would be good if they didn't make it so that you'd be punished for using the wrong types of blocks.

 

[FibS]

That last one would be good if they didn't make it so that you'd be punished for using the wrong types of blocks.

I meant what I said. Make NPCs happy, not unhappy (other than the existing "abandon corrupt houses" system.)

 

[Snickerbobble]

• Good: Encourages players to spread NPCs around world in order to teleport with Pylons (which dramatically improve tedium)

I see this as a bad thing honestly, as it discourages the player to build how they want to. I've seen some amazing villages and castle towns. Pylons are a great addition, but their implementation harms the creative freedom of the game.

• Blocks with a certain tag or certain material should make some NPCs happy. For instance, Witch Doctor likes Bamboo blocks and furniture. This applies only to blocks inside the area recognized as the NPC's room.

That would also impose a limitation to creative freedom. The player should be able to build how they like, and if they want to give a matching theme, that's on them. It's possible to give a matching theme with mismatching blocks- for example, white painted crimstone bricks or mudstone bricks can easily appear fitting in a Hallowed castle build, but the game would count them as "crimson" or "jungle" with your system.

 

[FibS]

I see this as a bad thing honestly, as it discourages the player to build how they want to [...] Pylons are a great addition, but their implementation harms the creative freedom of the game.

Um, no it doesn't. At all. If you just completely ignore Pylons, then they do not change how you would build compared to 1.3. You are not worse off for not making use of them, other than that you are not teleporting with Pylons.

Besides, once you have the Pylon, you no longer need to keep anybody happy enough to buy the same Pylon.

That would also impose a limitation to creative freedom.

Again, no it wouldn't, at all. I am not suggesting "bad blocks" that make prices worse, so you would be playing exactly the same as in 1.3 if you ignored the system.

The point of my suggestion is to add more ways to make NPCs happy but the threshold to hit for maximum prices is the same. More options to reach the same goal is not more limiting by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Flubman]

I see this as a bad thing honestly, as it discourages the player to build how they want to. I've seen some amazing villages and castle towns. Pylons are a great addition, but their implementation harms the creative freedom of the game.



That would also impose a limitation to creative freedom. The player should be able to build how they like, and if they want to give a matching theme, that's on them. It's possible to give a matching theme with mismatching blocks- for example, white painted crimstone bricks or mudstone bricks can easily appear fitting in a Hallowed castle build, but the game would count them as "crimson" or "jungle" with your system.

Universal Pylons, the game's ultimate type of pylon, doesn't require NPCs to function. Granted, they're hard to unlock, but they're worth noting.

 

[FibS]

Universal Pylons, the game's ultimate type of pylon, doesn't require NPCs to function. Granted, they're hard to unlock, but they're worth noting.

You can still only have one Universal Pylon at a time, though, and can only warp to it from another Pylon.

 

[Flubman]

You can still only have one Universal Pylon at a time, though, and can only warp to it from another Pylon.

Yeah, I looked that up after I posted that. Sorry.

 

[Snickerbobble]

Um, no it doesn't. At all. If you just completely ignore Pylons, then they do not change how you would build compared to 1.3. You are not worse off for not making use of them, other than that you are not teleporting with Pylons.

Besides, once you have the Pylon, you no longer need to keep anybody happy enough to buy the same Pylon.

What.. of course if you ignore a feature, it's as if it doesn't exist..? But they're there, encouraging the player to build a specific way. Point is, the game rewards you for one way of building. It locks a VERY convenient quality of life item behind one way of building. So to those who build these fantastic castle villages, they miss out for no good reason. Why are we rewarded for building our NPCs far apart? There is no reason to do this.

Again, no it wouldn't, at all. I am not suggesting "bad blocks" that make prices worse, so you would be playing exactly the same as in 1.3 if you ignored the system.

The point of my suggestion is to add more ways to make NPCs happy but the threshold to hit for maximum prices is the same. More options to reach the same goal is not more limiting by any stretch of the imagination.

But you are suggesting some blocks that'll be better than others, even if you can create a totally fitting themed build that technically doesn't use the biome's belonging blocks. It encourages one set of blocks when the game shouldn't put any unnecessary influence on the player. If you encourage one way of building, you discourage other ways of building, and that's harmful for a sandbox game like Terraria.

 

[FibS]

What.. of course if you ignore a feature, it's as if it doesn't exist..? But they're there, encouraging the player to build a specific way. Point is, the game rewards you for one way of building. It locks a VERY convenient quality of life item behind one way of building. So to those who build these fantastic castle villages, they miss out for no good reason. Why are we rewarded for building our NPCs far apart? There is no reason to do this.

You don't miss out on anything. You get the Pylon and then keep building the way you were going to. As long as any two NPCs are nearby out of the twenty-five that are available, the Pylon will work. It's like complaining about any other useful furniture item that encourages you to make it a centerpiece.

Just like you have to put the Witch Doctor in the Jungle and wait until night to buy the Leaf Wings from him, and can then put him wherever you want.

But you are suggesting some blocks that'll be better than others

... unless you have otherwise maxed the NPC's happiness, in which case you can indeed put any blocks you want and it won't matter.

Which is why I suggested adding more ways to max happiness so that you do not have to do a particular one of them.

 

[Snickerbobble]

You don't miss out on anything. You get the Pylon and then keep building the way you were going to. As long as any two NPCs are nearby, the Pylon will work. It's like complaining about any other useful furniture item that encourages you to make it a centerpiece.

Just like you have to put the Witch Doctor in the Jungle and wait until night to buy the Leaf Wings from him, and can then put him wherever you want.

That's not the same thing since you can buy the wings and then move him anywhere else and keep the wings. Pylons do not work if you move the NPCs away. They need 2 NPCs nearby to function, and that is a limit on creative freedom.

The game puts no influence on the furniture pieces you can use, so I don't know how that relates at all.

... unless you have otherwise maxed the NPC's happiness, in which case you can indeed put any blocks you want and it won't matter.

Which is why I suggested adding more ways to max happiness so that you do not have to do a particular one of them.

I'd rather just cut out the limitations completely and just let us build how we want without worry of penalty or bonus. Your idea would only slightly be better than the current system, but slightly more freedom is not full freedom. It should be the player's choice on how they build, not have all these arbitrary rules that limit freedom and creativity.

 

[Heroman3003]

So any new feature added that has some form of limitation on how you can use it is a limit to player creativity? That is extremely faulty logic. Pylons are reward for spreading your NPCs out and they help compensate for the said fact of them being spread out by removing travel time.