Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[Silversweeeper]

That's my concern as well. If that's how the system works, I'm not buying the DLC (because I'll probably stop playing the game).

Coalitions/Infamy are part of the patch. It will probably be possible to mod them to some extent (including completely disablind them, I suspect), but it is very unlikely that we will be able to prevent multi-religion coalitions from happening.

 

[SpartanV15]

Coalitions/Infamy are part of the patch. It will probably be possible to mod them to some extent (including completely disablind them, I suspect), but it is very unlikely that we will be able to prevent multi-religion coalitions from happening.

I will end up just reverting to older versions of the game, i use ironman so modding the feature out or editing is not an option for me

 

[Talq]

Im not too fond of this system particularly for that reason. Another example , Me playing Castile and suddenly Andalusia breaks up into small Taifas. Naturally id seize this opportunity to initiate the Reconquista and take what i can. With France breathing down my neck and friendly Christian Iberian kingdoms to my side id assume with the infamy from conquering these lands would have them form against me . I dont feel that when fighting another nation that follows another religion that you should acquire infamy from those of the same faith.

One post above yours...

Why? Leon did expand into Muslim lands. What happened? Burgos/Castille startet to ally with Muslim nations to stop the expansions.

And also the other way arround. Muslim Egypt often try to ally with the Crusaders to act against Muslim Persia.



Egypt did try to ally with the Crusaders against the Seljuks

Leaving aside that, the first experience of the EU4 (and hell EU3 + previous) AE system was simply that increasing infamy for some activities means they get eliminated when at the margin, which encourages some strange behaviour (in other words get ready for some strange maps of people blobbing all over the steppes and African seaboard. It will be like The republic all over again!) In practice, people get concerned about larger and expanding nations near them even if their expansion comes at the expense of 'enemies'.

Aside: while I don't like this change (it is after all a nerf and boredom with AE was one reason why I favor this over EU4), I'm not honestly exercised about it. I didn't have the patience to conquer the world without the speed limiter so not having the patience with it is hardly a surprise. Of course, by the same token I do find 'roleplayers' who are exercised about it to be some what illogical in their catastrophising.

 

[NewbieOne]

Actually, the problem here is that turning off the next DLC will not do anything, since infamy is part of the free patch (base game).

That made me think of something. I think we need to use the expression 'base game' more and 'free patch' or 'free-patch content' less. The reason is that the current use of 'free patch' makes it look like it's something added free of charge, hence, whether better or worse, it can still be a net gain. And shouldn't be criticized much because it's something of a gift, so it would be ungrateful to criticize it.

The other side of the coin, though, is that patches change the base game, and the base game was not a free product. Hence any post-release official changes need to aim for the same standards as a normal, full commercial release. This refers not just to QA/QC but also to the quality of the design process.

 

[GC13]

Why? Leon did expand into Muslim lands. What happened? Burgos/Castille startet to ally with Muslim nations to stop the expansions.

I don't have a book about the Reconquista in front of me right now, but I can make an educated guess that Burgos and Castille allied with whoever they thought would improve their own position the best, and wanted to contain a potential threat to their own power. You know, stuff rulers do all the time. Why does this behavior only trigger when you expand too quickly? All this does is force you to slow down. It's true that a realm doubling in strength in a few years would worry any neighbors, and probably add urgency to the search for a dance partner, but this infamy mechanic doesn't represent the panic of a major revision to the balance of power, it represents the only way to make the AI care about how powerful you're becoming.

When you're big it doesn't matter whether you space your conquests out once a year or once a decade: nobody's going to want to be alone on the dance floor with you.

 

[Deathwatch]

What I'm referring to is the weight of infamy gain in religious wars (not cross religious coalitions). IMO at least I think it needs a different ratio than straight out conquest. The problem is that infamy is global. So the religion who just got religious CB'd would actually be MORE worried, whereas the same religion rulers of the initial attacker might be slightly worried. Its really....muddled.

Yes, this is also my concern.
Imagine that the Pope called for a crusade to retake Kingdom of Jerusalem, and you won it (being the top contributor of the Crusade), and gain a lot of infamy to capturing lots of territories. Immediately, coalition consisting of your Catholic neighbors hate you more than Egypt that both of you has crushed before. Though I have to add, similar mechanics has been placed in EU IV, where some CBs, like Holy War have less AE (75% modifier if I am not mistaken) but I think in Crusade and Jihad context, 75% is still too big. The Kingdom of France should be happy if Kingdom of England gains the Jerusalem, not being angry because the winner is England.

75% is still too big, if we won Kingdom of Jerusalem the territory gain is so high, using 75% it is very possible that France will led a coalition against you on next year. Same thing for Jihad, your Muslim neighbor would ally with Catholic enemies just because you grabbed those territories from Byzantium. I think that EU IV era and CK II era is a bit different. People in Middle Age/CK II era is still bound heavily by religious conducts, thus what motivates most is religion, while in Renaissance/EU IV era people are bound heavily by profits, thus allowing inter-religion alliance. But I can't fathom seeing being ganged up by your fellow Catholics after a successful Crusade.

I would be fine with coalition, as long as it makes sense and logical.

 

[Lord_P]

I don't write a lot on these forums, but for this issue I will make an exception.
You have to imagine that in the time of Charlemagne "Emperors" had to walk the land to secure their dominion (capitals were some kind of retirement plans for old farts). Now you come with the premise that they had means to communicate with Arabs or other African pop. etc. (through embassies I presume and walkie-talkies) across the sea to prevent Byzantium expending? What's next, "A.I. entered 'big daddy' as command because you have x provinces"? It doesn't matter that it's from another age, have fun with tanks (and the supporters+- some undercover devs will just get on board, because it's fun, and CK 2 is no historical simulator, and they are bored, and look at this new world which no one uses, and random nations which is used only by devs etc).
Please don't reproduce mechanics just because it's balancing the game. Make them simulate the world and time we play in.
Thx Paradox for delivering great games. Please let CK 2 remain a somewhat historical (sope opera) simulator.
Even though some mechanics make sense revamping, other are just lazy solutions. You are great, because you are innovative and intelligent as a dev team. That's why i spend my precious free time playing your games (those over 1000 hours could of been useful developing a cure for cancer, or helping others... DAMN you Paradox, you just killed thousands).

I am thankful that you do not write a lot on these forums.

 

[Teutonic King]

I suppose this is to curtail the OP nature of the Seljuks, Abbasids, and others of their ilk. However I do feel that everyone is currently screaming out, WE DID NOT ASK FOR THIS!!!

 

[Checco]

That made me think of something. I think we need to use the expression 'base game' more and 'free patch' or 'free-patch content' less. The reason is that the current use of 'free patch' makes it look like it's something added free of charge, hence, whether better or worse, it can still be a net gain. And shouldn't be criticized much because it's something of a gift, so it would be ungrateful to criticize it.

The other side of the coin, though, is that patches change the base game, and the base game was not a free product. Hence any post-release official changes need to aim for the same standards as a normal, full commercial release. This refers not just to QA/QC but also to the quality of the design process.

This is a good point.

When I bought CK2 (since I come from EU4) I was looking for a game WITHOUT things like "shattered retreats", "AE" or "coalitions".
If not I would have just kept playing EU4.

If the game changes in a way they always denied it could change to (like Infamy, who was supposed not to exist), the original game I bought will be no more.

Things like those listed above should not be mandatory.
Why not making another "Free DLC" like Songs of Yuletide, containing coalitions, badboy, etc.?
That way, only those who want those features will get them, still for free.

 

[Dracko81]

When I bought CK2 (since I come from EU4) I was looking for a game WITHOUT things like "shattered retreats", "AE" or "coalitions".
If not I would have just kept playing EU4.

If the game changes in a way they always denied it could change to (like Infamy, who was supposed not to exist), the original game I bought will be no more.

It was never marketed as not having these things, nor was it ever said it will never happen. Even if it was, the developers have the right to change how the rules work.

The developers write, the rules, you play the game by those rules or you can play your own way.

 

[Checco]

It was never marketed as not having these things, nor was it ever said it will never happen.

Read back this thread, there is a quote from a DD where "No Badboy" was promised.

Even if it was, the developers have the right to change how the rules work.

The developers write, the rules, you play the game by those rules or you can play your own way.

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

As a paying customer, I have the right to get what I paid for, and to complain if I think something promised has not been delivered.

Your fanboyism is not something relevant in a discussion. I assume PI is more interested in keeping paying customers, as opposed to see them stop playing and buying DLCs.

Btw, when Sunset Invasion was released, the 'contested' content was all part of a DLC; everyone could play with or without it just ticking a square, so no big deal, everybody won.
What's wrong in putting the "EU4 mechanics" in a free DLC?
Those who want to stop the snowballing effect will get coalitions and BB, the others won't.

 

[macd21]

All signs point to Infamy being a global value.

I believe a Dev has stated that Christians will not be as bothered by a fellow Christian taking Muslim land. So no, not a global value.

 

[Dracko81]

Read back this thread, there is a quote from a DD where "No Badboy" was promised.

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

As a paying customer, I have the right to get what I paid for, and to complain if I think something promised has not been delivered.

Your fanboyism is not something relevant in a discussion. I assume PI is more interested in keeping paying customers, as opposed to see them stop playing and buying DLCs.

Btw, when Sunset Invasion was released, the 'contested' content was all part of a DLC; everyone could play with or without it just ticking a square, so no big deal, everybody won.
What's wrong in putting the "EU4 mechanics" in a free DLC?
Those who want to stop the snowballing effect will get coalitions and BB, the others won't.

I suggest you go read the DD they are referring to, the devs never said it will never be added. Just that it was not in the game at that stage. If you are going to use something someone says as a supporting piece of evidence for your argument, I suggest you actually read the post that you are referring to.

The devs aren't gods, but this is their game. They decide the rules, not you. Since you know, they are the developers and not you. If you don't want to support them by buying the game or DLCs, that is your decision. Just like you are allowed to disagree with decisions they make. But yea, you need to accept that they have the final say and if you don't like it then you have the option to change the rules. The game was release almost 4 years ago and the mechanics have changed with every release of a DLC.

Your hate isn't relevant to this thread. You're condemning a mechanic without ever seeing the whole and saying they are now breaking promises they never made. You making completely false claims and now since someone shows this you start with the name calling.

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

This isn't a EU4 mechanic, just because it has the same name, doesn't mean it behaves the same or is even close to how it behaves. Unless there is a complete overhaul on the war mechanics it is going to be completely different.

 

[Silversweeeper]

I believe a Dev has stated that Christians will not be as bothered by a fellow Christian taking Muslim land. So no, not a global value.

The closest reply to that effect (in this thread; I haven't checked elsewhere) has been "[Joining coalitions] is affected by [religion] a little but mostly it's about realpolitik. "You can kill me? Then I'm gonna try to defend me "". It is also clear in the OP that the HRE sees 41.44 % Infamy when looking at the Seljuks and that at least a couple of neighbours of the same religion have decided that the conquest of a few counties from an infidel on the opposite side of the Seljuks is bad enough to join a coalition (meaning they see at least 25 % Infamy). I suppose the ERE could see 100 % Infamy and that the rest see somewhat less, but it seems more consistent with what was written in the OP if Infamy currently is a global value.

 

[Checco]

I suggest you go read the DD they are referring to, the devs never said it will never be added. Just that it was not in the game at that stage. If you are going to use something someone says as a supporting piece of evidence for your argument, I suggest you actually read the post that you are referring to.

The devs aren't gods, but this is their game. They decide the rules, not you. Since you know, they are the developers and not you. If you don't want to support them by buying the game or DLCs, that is your decision. Just like you are allowed to disagree with decisions they make. But yea, you need to accept that they have the final say and if you don't like it then you have the option to change the rules. The game was release almost 4 years ago and the mechanics have changed with every release of a DLC.

Your hate isn't relevant to this thread. You're condemning a mechanic without ever seeing the whole and saying they are now breaking promises they never made. You making completely false claims and now since someone shows this you start with the name calling.

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

This isn't a EU4 mechanic, just because it has the same name, doesn't mean it behaves the same or is even close to how it behaves. Unless there is a complete overhaul on the war mechanics it is going to be completely different.

What an unnecessary verbose reply to repeat post #763.

I'm sure the devs are lucky to have someone well-versed as you to rewrite endlessly: "The Devs make all decisions. You puny 'you', just shut up!".

Despite the astonishing display of debate skills, I think I'll keep thinking a middle solution should exist between "Shut up" and "Stop buying the game", thank you very much.

 

[Dracko81]

What an unnecessary verbose reply to repeat post #763.

I'm sure the devs are lucky to have someone well-versed as you to rewrite endlessly: "The Devs make all decisions. You puny 'you', just shut up!".

Despite the astonishing display of debate skills, I think I'll keep thinking a middle solution should exist between "Shut up" and "Stop buying the game", thank you very much.

Typical response from someone who can't backup anything they said. You claim the devs are breaking promises and marketed a game to you and now changing it, but it never happened.

I'm also not saying shut up, I'm saying stop saying things that are not true.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Despite the astonishing display of debate skills, I think I'll keep thinking a middle solution should exist between "Shut up" and "Stop buying the game", thank you very much.

There's a number: don't install the new patch. If you do, revert to old version. If you like some of the patch stuff but not others, mod the game.

I, for one, will wait to criticise the implementation of this new idea when it will be, how to put it, implemented?

 

[nOxr]

The closest reply to that effect (in this thread; I haven't checked elsewhere) has been "[Joining coalitions] is affected by [religion] a little but mostly it's about realpolitik. "You can kill me? Then I'm gonna try to defend me "". It is also clear in the OP that the HRE sees 41.44 % Infamy when looking at the Seljuks and that at least a couple of neighbours of the same religion have decided that the conquest of a few counties from an infidel on the opposite side of the Seljuks is bad enough to join a coalition (meaning they see at least 25 % Infamy). I suppose the ERE could see 100 % Infamy and that the rest see somewhat less, but it seems more consistent with what was written in the OP if Infamy currently is a global value.

Even if Infamy is a global value, different realms could have different reactions to it. I'm sure distance and opinion will play a part. If a leader is allied or friendly towards a Realm with 25% Infamy, I doubt he will join a coalition. But an enemy would jump at the chance to join the coalition. In that view, it really doesn't matter if the accrued Infamy was at the expense of infidels or not, all that matter is if the Realm is a threat or not.

 

[Silversweeeper]

@nOxr: The only thing I am saying is that it currently seems like the amount of Infamy a character has is global. Exactly how relations, religion, etc. impacts coalitions is unclear, but the screenshots in the OP and Groogy's reply on the matter seems to point towards Realpolitik being the deciding factor. Some Realpolitik would be nice, but it currently seems like coalition members will be forcibly called to defend a coalition member in a holy war even if they share the religion of the coalition target and that they won't face any consequences for this.

 

[heliostellar]

I believe a Dev has stated that Christians will not be as bothered by a fellow Christian taking Muslim land. So no, not a global value.

Reference, please.