Game Mechanics The Problem With NPC Happiness

[neko]

I think it does the opposite actually.. for example, in most worlds going forward, the Dryad will most likely always be in the Jungle, and the Steampunker will most likely always be in the desert. Before this, players were free to place them wherever they wanted. A great forest tree for the Dryad was possible, maybe a Fae Forest made in the Hallow? The steampunker could live in a large airship, a clockwork tower, or some kind of factory. But if you do any of these now, the NPCs may dislike or hate it. It limits options by imposing just one location with one exact theme. Not all builds will be identical, but there is significantly less variety available now, unless the player gives up the convenience of pylons.

Haven't done mech bosses on master mode yet so idk about the steampunker. But Dryad like both jungle & mushroom biome so nahh she won't be stuck in the jungle forever, you can also move around other npc's like the goblin/mech to either underground/snow as long as they are with each other etc and even get better prices than if they would be in their "fav" biome
how much have you actually experienced or tried out the new system if you thought that it was just "1 best/only location" ?
you are making it sound way more strict than it actually is in game

but yee doubt il change your mind
Change is hard, I have been building box skyscrapers in the air above spawn since before we even had hardmode and platforms instead of doors for convenience

 

[PixelPatcher]

my original suggestion to this thread was to give big build another QoL, maybe lesser so that Red still get what he wants.

What if there was some item that made the trades of nearby NPCs cheaper? And its effect would get better and better the more NPCs were around it? The only restriction would be that you can only have one in your world. This gives a benefit to having all of your NPCs together that counteracts the happiness-based price increases. Ideally, this item would more-than counteract the price increase caused by the crowding, but only in large settlements.

This would provide some advantage to clumping your NPCs that is distinct from the pylon system, allowing players to chose which one, providing a fun and interesting decision.

 

[Snickerbobble]

Haven't done mech bosses on master mode yet so idk about the steampunker. But Dryad like both jungle & mushroom biome so nahh she won't be stuck in the jungle forever, you can also move around other npc's like the goblin/mech to either underground/snow as long as they are with each other etc and even get better prices than if they would be in their "fav" biome
how much have you actually experienced or tried out the new system if you thought that it was just "1 best/only location" ?
you are making it sound way more strict than it actually is in game

but yee doubt il change your mind
Change is hard, I have been building box skyscrapers in the air above spawn since before we even had hardmode and platforms instead of doors for convenience

I've made homes for every biome pylon so far besides the mushroom one, and I much prefer having my NPCs together. I like the look of a town or castle with villagers in it to make it look more lively, but now I'm punished and miss out on a convenient new feature because the game says No.

So the NPCs have favorites and liked biomes, but it would still offer more creativity to allow them anywhere without punishment. Point is, before NPCs could be anywhere, but now the game pushes you to keep them in one or two select biomes, which drastically reduces choice.

The change won't really encourage people to build beyond simple boxes- those who did box hotel/towers before can still settle with single box rooms spread across the world.. not that I think there should be penalty for simple builds. If the player wants simple boxes, or extravagant builds, that should be up to them.

BTW, the game punishes these builds, along with refusing them access to pylons:

Spoiler: Punished Builds

It's a shame that these builds are punished now. These are great builds and the game should welcome them, not discourage them.

 

[Mihn]

What if there was some item that made the trades of nearby NPCs cheaper? And its effect would get better and better the more NPCs were around it? The only restriction would be that you can only have one in your world. This gives a benefit to having all of your NPCs together that counteracts the happiness-based price increases. Ideally, this item would more-than counteract the price increase caused by the crowding, but only in large settlements.

This would provide some advantage to clumping your NPCs that is distinct from the pylon system, allowing players to chose which one, providing a fun and interesting decision.

Maybe merge this with the pylons, making it give teleportation along with an aura of happiness the more people are nearby leading to price reduction/penalty negation starting from 4-5 or more. No new item needed.

• If you keep many people in one place, you lose out on the teleportation but get reduced cost.
• If you spread them out, you lose the happiness boost but get quick, easy to set up teleporters.

So that way people are encouraged to use pylons regardless of how people build. They have great aesthetic values within the biome in my opinion, so I usually slap one down whenever there are NPCs around.
The benefit of early game, easy to set up teleportation outweigh the reduced cost, which will only be active once you collect a whole bunch of people so more people will still go for towns. Nearly everyone are happy which is good enough.

 

[Snickerbobble]

Maybe merge this with the pylons, making it give teleportation along with an aura of happiness the more people are nearby leading to price reduction starting from 4-5 or more. No new item needed.

• If you keep many people in one place, you lose out on the teleportation but get reduced cost.
• If you spread them out, you lose the happiness boost but get quick, easy to set up teleporters.

So that way people are encouraged to use pylons regardless of how people build. They have great aesthetic values within the biome in my opinion, so I usually slap one down whenever there are NPCs around

I really dislike the higher prices from unhappy NPCs but.. I honestly prefer my NPCs together and want to use pylons to get around the world faster. I'd rather have both pluses for either build style. Building can be its own reward. You have a cool base, you have a cool base. If you have a simple box house, you have a simple box house. All this system does is push arbitrary distances between NPCs. It's not fair to lock away content based on your build aesthetic.

 

[PixelPatcher]

Maybe merge this with the pylons, making it give teleportation along with an aura of happiness the more people are nearby leading to price reduction starting from 4-5 or more. No new item needed.

• If you keep many people in one place, you lose out on the teleportation but get reduced cost.
• If you spread them out, you lose the happiness boost but get quick, easy to set up teleporters.

So that way people are encouraged to use pylons regardless of how people build. They have great aesthetic values within the biome in my opinion, so I usually slap one down whenever there are NPCs around.

Yes, this would work very well.

Can you really not place pylons unless you meet the requirements to use them? I sort of assumed it would allow you to place it down wherever in the corresponding biome, you just couldn't use them. I've never tried though...

 

[PixelPatcher]

I really dislike the higher prices from unhappy NPCs but.. I honestly prefer my NPCs together and want to use pylons to get around the world faster. I'd rather have both pluses for either build style. Building can be its own reward. You have a cool base, you have a cool base. If you have a simple box house, you have a simple box house. All this system does is push arbitrary distances between NPCs. It's not fair to lock away content based on your build aesthetic.

The problem is that the original system heavily punished spreading your NPCs out, to the point that I would clump them all at spawn, even though I would prefer not to.

The same is true, though to a lesser extent, if we keep the current system and just remove NPC limits on pylons. If you clump your NPCs together, you only need one pylon to get to your entire base, leaving all the other pylons for random, movable "checkpoints". However, if you spread out your NPCs, suddenly you need many pylons to cover your entire base, even though it only took one for the other build style. With so many fixed pylons, this leaves far fewer movable "checkpoints" for the rest of the map.

I don't think it is really possible to make a system that equally prefers all building styles. So if there are going to be differences, we should at least make both options reasonable by providing different, but equally enticing, benefits.

 

[Heroman3003]

You can already place them down wherever. Just that attempting to use them without fulfilling all conditions will fail.

 

[Mihn]

Yes, this would work very well.

Can you really not place pylons unless you meet the requirements to use them? I sort of assumed it would allow you to place it down wherever in the corresponding biome, you just couldn't use them. I've never tried though...

You can place them down anywhere until you reach the limit of 1/type/world. You are blocked from teleporting if you fail any required condition (biome, threat, NPC count).

I really dislike the higher prices from unhappy NPCs but.. I honestly prefer my NPCs together and want to use pylons to get around the world faster. I'd rather have both pluses for either build style. Building can be its own reward. You have a cool base, you have a cool base. If you have a simple box house, you have a simple box house. All this system does is push arbitrary distances between NPCs. It's not fair to lock away content based on your build aesthetic.

Everyone would prefer the best case scenario, but unless the devs change their mind and opinion then I don't see they changing the requirement any time soon, considering the original intention of the system.

I'm just trying to reach a compromise that doesn't make a part of the fanbase feel heavily alienated for the way they build.

 

[Snickerbobble]

The problem is that the original system heavily punished spreading your NPCs out, to the point that I would clump them all at spawn, even though I would prefer not to.

The same is true, though to a lesser extent, if we keep the current system and just remove NPC limits on pylons. If you clump your NPCs together, you only need one pylon to get to your entire base, leaving all the other pylons for random, movable "checkpoints". However, if you spread out your NPCs, suddenly you need many pylons to cover your entire base, even though it only took one for the other build style. With so many fixed pylons, this leaves far fewer movable "checkpoints" for the rest of the map.

I don't think it is really possible to make a system that equally prefers all building styles. So if there are going to be differences, we should at least make both options reasonable by providing different, but equally enticing, benefits.

That seems a bit backwards, pylons should be a cause to spreading NPCs out, not spreading them out being the cause to pylons.

Pylons help you get to your NPCs if you spread them out, along with helping you access your world more easily, but if you prefer to keep your NPCs together, you can still access them easily, but you now miss out on accessing your world more easily. So the problem is that before 1.4, you were encouraged to keep them together, but after 1.4, you are encouraged to spread them out. The ideal solution is to allow both build preferences easy access to NPCs and to the world, and you can't accomplish this with the current pylon system.

 

[PixelPatcher]

You can place them down anywhere until you reach the limit of 1/type/world. You are blocked from teleporting if you fail any required condition (biome, threat, NPC count).

So, I guess I don't understand how the current system prevents you from using them for aesthetic reasons at all.

That seems a bit backwards, pylons should be a cause to spreading NPCs out, not spreading them out being the cause to pylons.

Pylons help you get to your NPCs if you spread them out, along with helping you access your world more easily, but if you prefer to keep your NPCs together, you can still access them easily, but you now miss out on accessing your world more easily. So the problem is that before 1.4, you were encouraged to keep them together, but after 1.4, you are encouraged to spread them out. The ideal solution is to allow both build preferences easy access to NPCs and to the world, and you can't accomplish this with the current pylon system.

Ok, you're right, but you haven't suggested a system that actually accomplishes what you're asking, and I don't think it is possible.

 

[Mihn]

So, I guess I don't understand how the current system prevents you from using them for aesthetic reasons at all.

If you just want it to look pretty without needing their functionality then you can slap them down anywhere. The only thing limiting their use as decorations is their placement limit, and I already made another suggestion about that, but since it isn't relevant to the discussion that is the penalty/build punishishment I didn't bring that problem up. Can you elaborate further?

 

[PixelPatcher]

If you just want it to look pretty without needing their functionality then you can slap them down anywhere. The only thing limiting their use as decorations is their placement limit, and I already made another suggestion about that, but since it isn't relevant to the discussion that is the penalty/build punishishment I didn't bring that problem up. Can you elaborate further?

Ah, ok, I thought you were saying here ( VVV ) that the NPC limits on pylons hampered their use as decoration.

So that way people are encouraged to use pylons regardless of how people build. They have great aesthetic values within the biome in my opinion, so I usually slap one down whenever there are NPCs around.

 

[Snickerbobble]

So, I guess I don't understand how the current system prevents you from using them for aesthetic reasons at all.



Ok, you're right, but you haven't suggested a system that actually accomplishes what you're asking, and I don't think it is possible.

But I have.. a few times through this thread.

To sum up..

Different ideas on a possible recipe could include a magic mirror, gems, items from the biome, and perhaps a rare item from said biome as well. Magic mirrors could also drop from Hallowed Crates, and the Queen Slime could drop a Chaotic Crystal, which can function like a mirror and replace it in the recipe.

They could be bought after certain requirements, like a boss down or certain enemy. King Slime/EoC for forest, Sand Elemental for desert, Skeletron for dungeon, etc.. this allows dungeon and corrupt/crimson pylons to exist, as well as an Underworld one for a WoF defeat.

 

[PixelPatcher]

But I have.. a few times through this thread.

To sum up..

Different ideas on a possible recipe could include a magic mirror, gems, items from the biome, and perhaps a rare item from said biome as well. Magic mirrors could also drop from Hallowed Crates, and the Queen Slime could drop a Chaotic Crystal, which can function like a mirror and replace it in the recipe.

They could be bought after certain requirements, like a boss down or certain enemy. King Slime/EoC for forest, Sand Elemental for desert, Skeletron for dungeon, etc.. this allows dungeon and corrupt/crimson pylons to exist, as well as an Underworld one for a WoF defeat.

Yes, but as I said before:

The same is true, though to a lesser extent, if we keep the current system and just remove NPC limits on pylons. If you clump your NPCs together, you only need one pylon to get to your entire base, leaving all the other pylons for random, movable "checkpoints". However, if you spread out your NPCs, suddenly you need many pylons to cover your entire base, even though it only took one for the other build style. With so many fixed pylons, this leaves far fewer movable "checkpoints" for the rest of the map.

This is a significant benefit given to one build style.

 

[Snickerbobble]

Yes, but as I said before:



This is a significant benefit given to one build style.

I mean, if you build things far apart, they're gonna be far apart. I personally would find it more fun to have to travel and explore and discover/unlock them, but if we make them simply sold by NPCs that are within the biome as of now, I guess that's a quick and easy way for NPC spreaders to get their pylons. However I don't think you'd be entirely without easy access to your spread out base since you do not acquire all NPCs at once and over time expand. You could have some in the forest early game, then move new ones to snow, some to jungle, some to ocean over time.

 

[PixelPatcher]

I mean, if you build things far apart, they're gonna be far apart. I personally would find it more fun to have to travel and explore and discover/unlock them, but if we make them simply sold by NPCs that are within the biome as of now, I guess that's a quick and easy way for NPC spreaders to get their pylons. However I don't think you'd be entirely without easy access to your spread out base since you do not acquire all NPCs at once and over time expand. You could have some in the forest early game, then move new ones to snow, some to jungle, some to ocean over time.

I am perfectly fine with changing the way pylons are obtained. I think one could get very creative in that area, and I would love to see what people could come up with.

What I don't think would work is removing all NPC requirements from them, I think the 2 NPCs nearby restriction works just fine. It provides spreaders with an easy way to access all their NPCs quickly while also being hard to exploit and abuse.

 

[Snickerbobble]

I am perfectly fine with changing the way pylons are obtained. I think one could get very creative in that area, and I would love to see what people could come up with.

What I don't think would work is removing all NPC requirements from them, I think the 2 NPCs nearby restriction works just fine. It provides spreaders with an easy way to access all their NPCs quickly while also being hard to exploit and abuse.

But.. you were just asking about fairness for NPC spreaders, but this requirement's restricting to those who prefer to keep a main base/village/castle.

 

[PixelPatcher]

But.. you were just asking about fairness for NPC spreaders, but this requirement's restricting to those who prefer to keep a main base/village/castle.

Yes, it is restricting, but I don't think there is a way to fix that and still keep everything fair. So the only way to make it fair is to give another bonus to clumpers, such as the change Mihn and I came up with:

What if there was some item that made the trades of nearby NPCs cheaper? And its effect would get better and better the more NPCs were around it? The only restriction would be that you can only have one in your world. This gives a benefit to having all of your NPCs together that counteracts the happiness-based price increases. Ideally, this item would more-than counteract the price increase caused by the crowding, but only in large settlements.

This would provide some advantage to clumping your NPCs that is distinct from the pylon system, allowing players to chose which one, providing a fun and interesting decision.

Maybe merge this with the pylons, making it give teleportation along with an aura of happiness the more people are nearby leading to price reduction/penalty negation starting from 4-5 or more. No new item needed.

• If you keep many people in one place, you lose out on the teleportation but get reduced cost.
• If you spread them out, you lose the happiness boost but get quick, easy to set up teleporters.

So that way people are encouraged to use pylons regardless of how people build. They have great aesthetic values within the biome in my opinion, so I usually slap one down whenever there are NPCs around.
The benefit of early game, easy to set up teleportation outweigh the reduced cost, which will only be active once you collect a whole bunch of people so more people will still go for towns. Nearly everyone are happy which is good enough.

Alternatively, you could remove the pylons as well as price penalties (but not the reductions) entirely, but I don't think either of us want that.

 

[Snickerbobble]

Yes, it is restricting, but I don't think there is a way to fix that and still keep everything fair. So the only way to make it fair is to give another bonus to clumpers, such as the change Mihn and I came up with:

Quality of life access to your world by far tops lowered prices...

It would just make so much more sense to have no restriction to keep the pylons ongoing. Their unlock should be a task/challenge, but ongoing use should be free. I don't know why there needs to be ups and downs to each build style, it doesn't have to be needlessly complex. I don't buy this "decision" making argument of which option to go for, you should just be free to build how you like. You could build your way, I could build my way, anyone could build their way and be happy. Putting different rewards on different methods of building still puts an influence on build style because one may prefer one style but prefer the other's rewards. No rewards, no influence on builds, please. Just let us do what we want without arbitrary restrictions and an ironic use of "choice" that actually limits choice.