Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[LFA]

That new infamy thingy sounds great !! I wish we had that months ago.
Anyway I'm still very glad Pdox is still taking time and effort to continually work on the game and make it better and better. I'm usually quite the sting (and poor too) when it comes to spending money on games past the purchase, but with a product such as CK2, I'm actually happy to give Paradox my gold, even if it's on useless coats of arm of families I won't even play or notice.

I haven't played the game for a while so this might have changed, but now all we need is more incentive for vassals to dislike their liege and more ways to be a pain in his ass. And we'll finally have a close to perfect gameplay.
Keep going pdox, you are doing it well.

 

[NewbieOne]

The devs aren't gods, but this is their game. They decide the rules, not you.

Yes, but in your reasoning you are omitting the difference made by wrapping something up for release and selling it as a finished work. This 'finishedness' is not absolute, but neither is it nonexistent.

This quote will illustrate the error I'm speaking about:

If you don't want to support them by buying the game or DLCs, that is your decision.

— That is a decision you can only make before buying. If the change occurs after the purchase, you cannot unbuy what you purchased.

Sunset invasion was a content DLC. The introduction of new mechanics and balancing is not a content DLC. It is a mechanics overhaul.

Mechanics are also content. Look at Republics (TR), Tribals (CM), Nomads (HL), all of which are based on optional mechanics that are quite game-changing and somewhat close to the core mechanics of the game.

(...) I think I'll keep thinking a middle solution should exist between "Shut up" and "Stop buying the game", thank you very much.

Yes, precisely that. It's not a 0/1 thing, it's about finding some balance. There must be a step between the two so that it doesn't come to 'stop buying the game'. It's about communicating. I can't see how not communicating about the need for change in a company's approach, with the binary result of either sucking it up or not buying any more products, is superior to communicating and giving feedback. Feedback is essential because it allows a business to even know that there is an area in which a change or lack of change to the existing situation could affect sales, customer loyalty/retention etc., and then to consider what the pros and cons are and make an informed decision about how to proceed.

 

[Dracko81]

Yes, but in your reasoning you are omitting the difference made by wrapping something up for release and selling it as a finished work. This 'finishedness' is not absolute, but neither is it nonexistent.

This quote will illustrate the error I'm speaking about:



— That is a decision you can only make before buying. If the change occurs after the purchase, you cannot unbuy what you purchased.



Mechanics are also content. Look at Republics (TR), Tribals (CM), Nomads (HL), all of which are based on optional mechanics that are quite game-changing and somewhat close to the core mechanics of the game.



Yes, precisely that. It's not a 0/1 thing, it's about finding some balance. There must be a step between the two so that it doesn't come to 'stop buying the game'. It's about communicating. I can't see how not communicating about the need for change in a company's approach, with the binary result of either sucking it up or not buying any more products, is superior to communicating and giving feedback. Feedback is essential because it allows a business to even know that there is an area in which a change or lack of change to the existing situation could affect sales, customer loyalty/retention etc., and then to consider what the pros and cons are and make an informed decision about how to proceed.

Lets quote something from a week ago and take the comment out of context. In the hope they don't remember why they said it.

Since when are the developers 'gods'? You have to take what they do, shut up, and give them your money?

I never once said don't buy the game or the DLC. Please stop making things up. Go troll someone else.

 

[Checco]

Lets quote something from a week ago and take the comment out of context. In the hope they don't remember why they said it.

I never once said don't buy the game or the DLC. Please stop making things up. Go troll someone else.

Your way to draw straws when you lack arguments has something of supernaturally unique...

I would put you in my ignore list if you weren't so funny to read.

 

[NewbieOne]

I agree with this one. Nations, big or small, should be more concerned on giants next door, not when smaller nations taking a grab at each other.

That's one of the points where different players will have different opinions. This also means rulers of small realms in real life likely would have different opinions too, especially depending on their individual personalities. And, for the record, people aren't necessarily acting in their own best interest, either, nor are they always in their best shape mentally or on their best behaviour. In short, dumb mistakes and even spectacular blunders of otherwise very smart people should definitely be present in the game. It's only that the difference between 'expected' or 'smart' or 'normal' courses of action versus anomalies and blunders should be clearer.

Right now, sometimes you can't easily tell the difference between an AI blunder and good AI depiction of human error, and you are left wondering. Perhaps there could be more clarity if those blunders were more human-like and less AI-like.

Why we care about a barony taken away from another country near us, while the big France/HRE still standing next door?

If we are a cautious and diligent ruler, we care about both. It can also be that we can't do anything about France/HRE at all, but we can do something about Count Roger or Duke Hubert next door, so we accept what we can't change and change what we can change.

I agree, taking land does not make nation scary, but being huge and powerful does. Nations should fear you more if you have huge military strength, not when you get some lands in some faraway places. After all, smaller nations should be "happy" that the big nations are swallowing their rival, and not them anyways.

It's a mix of both, actually. Simply being very powerful doesn't make you scary if you are predictable and ethically conscious in the eyes of other people. You can be less powerful but more unpredictable, more vicious, more dishonourable and be seen as more of a threat than powers greater than you.

Yes, it's big problem. If the system is not properly implemented, joining and winning the Crusade is a one-way-ticket to your kingdom's doom from blob armies. And thinking that England and HRE and the Turks themselves will gang up on France after defeating the Turks is an absurd way of logic.

Actually, that wouldn't be unlike how at least some governments would act. Not everybody is honourable in real life, and there's quite a bunch of backstabbers looking out for no. 1, as well as a bunch of psychopaths who don't think or feel the same way a normal person does.

Also, perhaps try not seeing every decision the AI makes in the game as the counterpart of a well-thought-out, reasoned, level-headed decision of a human being. It may well be the equivalent of a rash, momentary action with far-reaching consequences.

Perfidy and stupidity both need to be in, it's only a matter of achieving the right frequency. Which, in itself, is a tough balancing act.

 

[hypaspist]

damn, i am one of those eu 4 mp fanatics who hate people who wana conquer the world and dont like AE and coalitions , BUT, THIS mechanic in CK2? honestly, i dont know if its a good idea, plox paradox, THINK TWICE before doing things like these, read these comments objectively , i see lots of good arguments against implementation of this mechanic. do not let your ego win(cos basically decision is on 1 or 2 guys ) ,if you realise that the feature is bad, change your mind or find another way (as someone already suggested) to STOP, not pause the snowball. you can CLEARLY see, that at least 50% of the people disagree with you,its true. there are no complex explanations and excuses, we are either angry or afraid when it comes to this potential* new mechanic

 

[Thure]

you can CLEARLY see, that at least 50% of the people disagree with you,its true.

50 % of 500 people on this forum. But CK has a lot more players than 500. Don't trust the forum for general opinion. The forum forced Paradox to release a non steam version (large uprisiing in the forum because of steam). But eventually less than 5 % of the CK2 players bought the non-steam version and Paradox abandoned it.

 

[Ruwaard]

50 % of 500 people on this forum. But CK has a lot more players than 500. Don't trust the forum for general opinion. The forum forced Paradox to release a non steam version (large uprisiing in the forum because of steam). But eventually less than 5 % of the CK2 players bought the non-steam version and Paradox abandoned it.

Yes and no, most of the forum is quite invested in these games and certainly belong to the core players of these games. Now it's true, that more people than just the forum play Paradox games; so IMHO the forum can certainly deliver (very) useful input for Paradox, but shouldn't be more than this.

IMHO I like the proposed mechanic, but it's likely it might end up needing a few tweaks to function optimally, but that's what patches are for.

 

[keynes2.0]

50% is pretty misleading. The point of reference is that a dev diary usually gets more then 95% approval. Even dev diaries that are vague will meet with strong approval. That means that large numbers of people who normally trust p'dox judgement think they have made a mistake here.

 

[The Great Bear]

IMHO I like the proposed mechanic, but it's likely it might end up needing a few tweaks to function optimally, but that's what patches are for.

This.
Also if its like any other Paradox DLC this mechanic will start working as intended after the DLC after this one is released.
I mean we had pacifistic mongol hordes with the Horse Lords DLC so...

 

[Tweakee]

50 % of 500 people on this forum. But CK has a lot more players than 500. Don't trust the forum for general opinion.

This is true. I'm more concerned with the quality of the arguments than the quantity.

I have yet to see a strong argument in support of this system (even from the devs). I've seen numerous strong arguments in favor of other systems (most of which are already in the game).

Dropping such a huge change into a game this old, when you can't justify it with a strong argument is a BAD idea. "Anything is better than blobs" is NOT a strong argument.

I would never say this forum is a consensus among all CK2 players. But this works the other way - the "average" player is likely NOT forming megablobs when they play. I also highly doubt the average CK2 player is thinking while playing, "You know what this game needs to be more fun? COALITIONS!"

 

[Slayen]

Honestly, its the fact that this is a global value that probably bugs me the most. Even in the few rough real life examples that people have brought forth, all the powers involved where in the same region. Be it the crusaders and the mongols against the Muslims in the holy land, or Castile and the Muslims against Leon in Iberia. Even in the case of the Carolingians and Abbasids, the actually alliances and military coordination was between the Franks and the pro-Abbasid Muslim leaders in Iberia. Other than diplomatic back and forth there was very little going on between Carolingians and the Caliph in Baghdad. Nothing really ike what this coalition system seems to be doing.

 

[Thure]

Honestly, its the fact that this is a global value that probably bugs me the most. Even in the few rough real life examples that people have brought forth, all the powers involved where in the same region. Be it the crusaders and the mongols against the Muslims in the holy land, or Castile and the Muslims against Leon in Iberia. Even in the case of the Carolingians and Abbasids, the actually alliances and military coordination was between the Franks and the pro-Abbasid Muslim leaders in Iberia. Other than diplomatic back and forth there was very little going on between Carolingians and the Caliph in Baghdad. Nothing really ike what this coalition system seems to be doing.

The value is global. But the coalitions are not global but they seem mostly to be local.

 

[Slayen]

The value is global. But the coalitions are not global but they seem mostly to be local.

It that were true, than the Karakhanids and Ghazvanids would not have been part of that coalition in the OP screenshots.

The Fatmids, Georgia even a few other small powers in the holy land and caucuses? Those I could buy and would come close to the sort of things that actually happened historically.

A lot of the others that are part? Not so much.

While distance does seem to play a part, it's not distance from the actually hot spot, just from your own boarders and that doesn't make much sense.

It was the near by Mongols that the crusader states reached out to against the Egyptian Muslims. not the sub-Saharan Africans or the more westward north African powers that also shared a border with Mamluk Egypt.

This is really an area where EU4's AE does the job much better. Course, I'm not a huge fan of that mechanic but then that might be as I tend to play in or near the HRE frequently and those multipliers drive me up the wall.

To put it another way, from all signs seem to point to that, should China be added, seeing a coalition against the Mongols comprised of the Kieven Rus and Song China would be a possibility.

 

[Dracko81]

It comes down to balance, if you have it that a few realms form a coalition against a every large realm, it would do nothing at all. If more people can join then it would make the war more difficult.

If the mechanic is to have any use what so ever, you will need to allow anyone who feels threatened to join.

Even then who really cares, it's not going to stop people from expanding.

 

[Ruwaard]

It that were true, than the Karakhanids and Ghazvanids would not have been part of that coalition in the OP screenshots.

The Fatmids, Georgia even a few other small powers in the holy land and caucuses? Those I could buy and would come close to the sort of things that actually happened historically.

A lot of the others that are part? Not so much.

While distance does seem to play a part, it's not distance from the actually hot spot, just from your own boarders and that doesn't make much sense.

It was the near by Mongols that the crusader states reached out to against the Egyptian Muslims. not the sub-Saharan Africans or the more westward north African powers that also shared a border with Mamluk Egypt.

This is really an area where EU4's AE does the job much better. Course, I'm not a huge fan of that mechanic but then that might be as I tend to play in or near the HRE frequently and those multipliers drive me up the wall.

To put it another way, from all signs seem to point to that, should China be added, seeing a coalition against the Mongols comprised of the Kieven Rus and Song China would be a possibility.

That can depend on what the coalition has as its' goal. If their target has expanded rather much quite rapidly, than at once every neighbouring ruler can get worried and at least wants to show, that there's a limit to expansion. So that they all share the same concern seems valid, but a coordinated coalition wouldn't always be possible.

 

[duhsveti]

Reminds me of the Shogun 2: Total War realm divide mechanic, when you got too bulky and everyone just started ganging up on you. Even the guys who were your closest allies up to that point. I hated that feature from the bottom of my heart.

 

[Jorlem]

I just hope that they improve coordination between allies. Otherwise, the coalitions are just going to end up like crusades, where even though there is numerical supremacy, the armies trickle in one at a time and are picked off by the army of the target. Maybe they could add EU4's "attach to this army" checkbox to CK2?

 

[Dracko81]

I just hope that they improve coordination between allies. Otherwise, the coalitions are just going to end up like crusades, where even though there is numerical supremacy, the armies trickle in one at a time and are picked off by the army of the target. Maybe they could add EU4's "attach to this army" checkbox to CK2?

Umm what? The button already exists.

Also typically when the crusaders are next to the target, they are more than capable of handling the war.

 

[Jorlem]

Umm what? The button already exists.

No it doesn't. EU4 has a checkbox on an army's window that tells the AI to attach their armies to that army. All that CK2 has is a button that attaches your army to someone else's.