It's not the AI that screws me over, it's the "no rule has exeptions EVER" that is my pet peve atm. On the other hand, i have over 1000 hours clocked so it must still be a great game
Since this has become little more than fanboying at me, I guess I'll just assume that it's inherent to the game's design and that CK2 just isn't for me. Thank you to the people who actually tried to be helpful.
Since this has become little more than fanboying at me, I guess I'll just assume that it's inherent to the game's design and that CK2 just isn't for me. Thank you to the people who actually tried to be helpful.
Maybe its just the control freak inside you who cant stand it to see his plans in ruins. Its ok. We are all control freaks somehow. I had this with CK1 as well.
Just the education made me go up a wall untill....i kept playing and understood the game mechanics better as well as having fun in overcoming every burdon that was put on my shoes.
Its hard to get at first. I know, because i love micromanaging, but this is not about sliders, but possibilities and options. surprise, surprise...
EU 3 has so much potential, but I have given up a game because of its stupid rebellion mechanics. In this game, rebels are almost harmless, kinda. CK2 is my favorite because, it is the least annoying with its mechanics. I solely put EU, which I do like, lower because of the doom stacks of rebels which appear every minute.
Since this has become little more than fanboying at me, I guess I'll just assume that it's inherent to the game's design and that CK2 just isn't for me. Thank you to the people who actually tried to be helpful.
I'd disagree:People did try to be helpful. Instead you thumbed your nose and went "Uh uh!"
Do you really want a game that holds your hand like that?
[...]
The problem is you.
You seem like someone who simply can't handle not getting what you want and when the game challenges you, you get angry instead of rising to the challenge. The sense of entitlement you seem to expect would make this into a more boring game.
I think you are bullshitting us at the moment, if you don't have anything rational to put on the table, don't put it on!
Some have been helpful, others have exaggerated his points into irrelevancy and crossed lines of patronisation or even aggression frequently.What you're complaining about is just strange.
I'd disagree:
Some have been helpful, others have exaggerated his points into irrelevancy and crossed lines of patronisation or even aggression frequently.
I'd say he's been largely polite, especially given his treatment.
So you play CK2 to be constantly be screwed over? There is a difference between the AI playing intelligently, and doing things to purposely prevent you from inheriting something. This shouldn't be a war game, and yet, ultimately that's the only way your going to expand at all in it. I put a fair amount of time into this game when it came out, and yet I rarely inherited more than a barony during an entire game.
I'd disagree:
Some have been helpful, others have exaggerated his points into irrelevancy and crossed lines of patronisation or even aggression frequently.
I'd say he's been largely polite, especially given his treatment.
Well, that's the idea.You just quoted two people and ignored all the ones who offered advice.
Again, please reread my post:Also, citing that handful of examples as "frequent" and suggesting the unhelpful/mildly rude are somehow equivalent to the larger number of people who were giving advice is an exageration itself.
I cited the negative behaviour of these posters in this thread as frequent (as in, they have not taken part in this discussion without doing these things up until now); nowhere did I say it was frequent to all posters in the thread or frequent to the thread as a whole.Some have been helpful, others have exaggerated his points into irrelevancy and crossed lines of patronisation or even aggression frequently.
I think that's true. Luck plays a much bigger role in CK2 than in EU3 or V2. It's part of what gives the game a different feel. Everything revolves around your dynasty, so individual brilliance or death has a much larger impact than when you're playing as a nation.I guess I'll just assume that it's inherent to the game's design...
Since this has become little more than fanboying at me, I guess I'll just assume that it's inherent to the game's design and that CK2 just isn't for me. Thank you to the people who actually tried to be helpful.
I rarely inherited more than a barony during an entire game.
I will concede that my tone was quite harsh. Although I am far from a fanboy. I do believe CK2 is a fantastic game, one to which I've become quite addicted. But anyone who has followed my posts also knows that in the past I've often been quite critical of sloppy design decisions and the like when they've popped up. I just call them like I see them.
The reason I was harsh was because of your tone and the implication of your argument. You complained that CK2 was broken because when you played it you didn't always get what you wanted. When you met opposition to your plans, you believed you were "getting screwed" by the game. That it was, in fact, the AI intentionally targeting you to "screw" you and that this was a design flaw. I found that argument more than a little offensive. Still do.
If you had written your OP in a more neutral tone, I would have simply ignored it. But the outright aggression behind it, and the sense of total entitlement to a game in which you meet no opposition and your perfectly controlled plans always work, are the sort of arguments that deserved to be pushed back against and firmly. I don't do it often or lightly, but I thought your OP was almost uniquely troublesome and your follow ups haven't changed my mind about that. I'm sure it's not fun to be taken on directly and personally like that, but I still believe the tone and content of your posts indeed deserve that response.