1.2.1 has gone a bit overboard with the Ryuku exploit prevention

[hwoosh]

Most of the features in 1.2 were already easily moddable in 1.1. So, why did they release a patch?

Because they’re the devs, and they have every right to make the game that they want to make.

There’s a lot of casual disrespect to the devs floating around here. For example, let’s refrain from using the words ‘fix’ and ‘broken’ when referring things that are design decisions we don’t like (rather than actual bugs).

 

[Mann42]

The devs added in core fading because they wanted it and felt others would too. They made it moddable because they knew other people might not. If you're asking the devs to "fix" a feature of the game that is completely moddable (especially one that takes under a minute to fix) you're just wasting time you could be spending enjoying the game.

Most of the features in 1.2 were already easily moddable in 1.1. So, why did they release a patch?

This good gentleman answered your question satisfactorily.

If we can simply mod everything to our liking, then why do they even need to patch?

Let us go in circles. Since you seem to enjoy modding your game, why doesn't Paradox change it back to the old values and YOU can mod it the way you like it. Win-win!

 

[kraussda]

Most of the features in 1.2 were already easily moddable in 1.1. So, why did they release a patch?

That just isn't true, but it's pointless to have that argument. I offered a fix for a problem that takes half a minute to implement, has no side effects on other areas of gameplay, and directly addresses the problem. The response I got was "yeah, that's what I want paradox to do." How else can I respond to that, lol?

 

[kraussda]

This good gentleman answered your question satisfactorily.

If we can simply mod everything to our liking, then why do they even need to patch?

Let us go in circles. Since you seem to enjoy modding your game, why doesn't Paradox change it back to the old values and YOU can mod it the way you like it. Win-win!

Those values weren't moddable in 1.1

edit: though, fine, I get the picture. I won't offer perfectly valid solutions to your problems anymore. This level of entitlement is crazy.

 

[WeissRaben]

Maybe they should introduce a RR penalty for converting cultures like you have for deploying a missionary? Currently it is basically a no-brainer if you have the MP to spare. I'd say that central efforts to effectively stamp out a culture (like the English trying to dilute the Scottish culture by promoting cross-culture marriages) should be met with some resistance.

I think that culture should be reworked a bit. Culture groups and cultures should not be tied so tightly, but movable. Converting a province to your culture wouldn't change it, but move it to your culture group. Converted Ireland would still be Irish, but in the British culture group.

 

[Hootieleece]

The Nationalistic Rebels you speak of are almost non existent after the core are gone. Mostly because AI and Human Player BOTH culture convert provinces when they have monarch points to spare. Other than costing a lot of Diplomatic Mon points (average 150) it is almost a no-brainer if province in question is of another Culture group. I only do it when I get a mission......

The reason I say rebels are non existent is how many times in late game (using save games) that you just CAN'T use support rebels diplomatic action. With tool tip saying "no rebels to support"

And adding a +revolt risk modifier to provinces getting culture converted would make sense like sending a missionary.

 

[Atalvyr]

Are you really sure it's no-brainer? I almost never do it. Even trade buildings are excellent income boosters.
Furthermore RR penalty ~ no penalty once you hit around 1500

Well, assuming that you cannot reliably keep all your cultures accepted in most parts of the map (due to it being below 10% of your base tax), you will be getting a penalty to tax. This might be off-set by building trade buildings, though those require a gold investment as well (and if its income you need, you might not have gold to spend). Getting rid of the penalties associated with culture only costs MP (and not a lot either), which most western nations should have plenty of (barring a string of poor rulers).

As for RR not being an issue past 1500, the chunky +3 for missionaries is enough to push provinces over most of the time in my games if I'm being all warlike and whatnot. Maybe you are just more careful with your WE.

 

[Prodicus]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this ITT, but I'm gonna say the exact same thing I said in the Great Schism thread.

Grand strategy gamers want fundamentally different things from EUIV. Trying to get one's own preferred mechanics implemented in a single game mode is absolutely the wrong way to go about this debate, as that will lead to Paradox pandering to everyone and pleasing no one.

What we SHOULD do is respect others' playstyles and agitate for three separate game modes:

-A Historical Mode, where the ease of expansion fluctuates considerably based on the time and place, and in line with historical plausibility. So, for instance, in 1800 France or Austria can conquer and core Europe really fast (but massive coalitions will form really quickly for little AE), random international coalitions of natives don't form against GB (but attrition is much higher overseas until your tech/presence there increases), giant swathes of territory can be taken in 1700s colonial wars (but that massively increases colonial rebel chance), etc. etc. etc. It could allow for far greater fluctuations in power and a lot more risk to strong empires, but also greater opportunity for extremely skilled players (unless they're playing Ryukyu, Albania, etc., of course). This mode would generally be around 1.2 in terms of difficulty of expansion, with the historical part making certain aspects a lot easier and certain parts a lot harder.
-A Normal Mode, where expansion is somewhere between 1.13 and 1.2 in difficulty and speed. Perhaps keep the basic expansion mechanics constant in this mode for those who want a fairly consistent gameplay experience and less risk.
-An "Arcade"/Napoleon Mode, where expansion is easy for anyone who has the military and economic capabilities to carry it out. Make coring faster (or get rid of OE altogether!), make manpower replenish faster, etc., and have all these bonii apply to the AI as well, so the game presents a serious endgame challenge of massive blob wars.

This will provide an enjoyable gameplay experience for everyone. NOFUNALLOWED role-playing history nerds like me can play in Historical, players who want extremely rapid expansion and lots of fast-paced strategy can play in Arcade, and the rest of the playerbase can play in Normal.

I don't think this would be terribly difficult to program. There's no reason we can't all get what we want.

 

[WeissRaben]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this ITT, but I'm gonna say the exact same thing I said in the Great Schism thread.

Grand strategy gamers want fundamentally different things from EUIV. Trying to get one's own preferred mechanics implemented in a single game mode is absolutely the wrong way to go about this debate, as that will lead to Paradox pandering to everyone and pleasing no one.

What we SHOULD do is respect others' playstyles and agitate for three separate game modes:

-A Historical Mode, where the ease of expansion fluctuates considerably based on the time and place, and in line with historical plausibility. So, for instance, in 1800 France or Austria can conquer and core Europe really fast (but massive coalitions will form really quickly for little AE), random international coalitions of natives don't form against GB (but attrition is much higher overseas until your tech/presence there increases), giant swathes of territory can be taken in 1700s colonial wars (but that massively increases colonial rebel chance), etc. etc. etc. It could allow for far greater fluctuations in power and a lot more risk to strong empires, but also greater opportunity for extremely skilled players (unless they're playing Ryukyu, Albania, etc., of course). This mode would generally be around 1.2 in terms of difficulty of expansion, with the historical part making certain aspects a lot easier and certain parts a lot harder.
-A Normal Mode, where expansion is somewhere between 1.13 and 1.2 in difficulty and speed. Perhaps keep the basic expansion mechanics constant in this mode for those who want a fairly consistent gameplay experience and less risk.
-An "Arcade"/Napoleon Mode, where expansion is easy for anyone who has the military and economic capabilities to carry it out. Make coring faster (or get rid of OE altogether!), make manpower replenish faster, etc., and have all these bonii apply to the AI as well, so the game presents a serious endgame challenge of massive blob wars.

This will provide an enjoyable gameplay experience for everyone. NOFUNALLOWED role-playing history nerds like me can play in Historical, players who want extremely rapid expansion and lots of fast-paced strategy can play in Arcade, and the rest of the playerbase can play in Normal.

I don't think this would be terribly difficult to program. There's no reason we can't all get what we want.

And then, when you think you have found it and everyone is going to be happy, comes someone like me who likes 1.2 as is and wants no more inferences of real history in the game. Fourth category. Which makes the problem not so easily solvable.

 

[Prodicus]

And then, when you think you have found it and everyone is going to be happy, comes someone like me who likes 1.2 as is and wants no more inferences of real history in the game. Fourth category. Which makes the problem not so easily solvable.

Well, you could always have several different options in Normal Mode to adjust the difficulty/pace to exactly where you want it.

 

[zodium]

Well, you could always have several different options in Normal Mode to adjust the difficulty/pace to exactly where you want it.

I think the confusion might come from the fact that you called it Normal mode, which might imply you want it to replace the current difficulty options, removing the ability to play current 1.2 as-is.

 

[Prodicus]

I think the confusion might come from the fact that you called it Normal mode, which might imply you want it to replace the current difficulty options, removing the ability to play current 1.2 as-is.

Ah, well to clarify, I think it'd be best if Normal were kept modular, just like the current game. Arcade and Historical would fundamentally change the expansion mechanics of the game, whereas Normal would allow you to make the same minor adjustments you currently can (maybe even a few more).

With the inclusion of a general "copperman" mode, as well as ironman achievements specific to each game mode (WC for Arcade only, specific historical challenges for Historical mode, etc.), I think this proposal would please more or less everyone.

 

[WeissRaben]

Well, you could always have several different options in Normal Mode to adjust the difficulty/pace to exactly where you want it.

I'm not hostile to the idea. I was just pointing at the fact that a similar road, while UNDOUBTEDLY the best one, is almost impossible. You would have at least (I think) four base modes, times AI settings, times difficulty settings. 36 different settings possibilities. That's harsh to test.

 

[Prodicus]

I'm not hostile to the idea. I was just pointing at the fact that a similar road, while UNDOUBTEDLY the best one, is almost impossible. You would have at least (I think) four base modes, times AI settings, times difficulty settings. 36 different settings possibilities. That's harsh to test.

Well, you could just have one normal mode that has a ton of different settings regarding PUs, coring, OE, AE, and so on, and then Arcade and Historical, which have far fewer settings. There will never be a player consensus on balance, so what they could do is rigorously test Historical and Arcade, as well as the default settings for Normal Mode. They can determine what they want the player experience to be on default settings on Normal Mode, and then Normal Mode players who dislike the flow of the default settings can adjust them as needed by making coring faster/slower, reducing/increasing AE, and so on.

Maybe they could do this via a beta patch so they have more manpower to test for balance and iron out the kinks?

Either way, you're absolutely correct that it would be tricky to get just right, but I think it's the only way to make all the fans happy in the long run.

 

[OhioAstro]

Did you read that code? Nationalist rebels can put cores back. And they do not need cores to revolt. Just the correct culture and revolt risk. Yes, Scotland can appear 800 years later (better use a timeline extension mod), if the provinces are Scottish and the parent nation is in turmoil enough.

And it can be impossible in practice to trigger that as a consequence of a major war, which was my point. If I can't fund these rebels and they appear only randomly - both typically true - then this path is not open for the problem in question (consequences for losing a major war.)

 

[Cymsdale]

This whole nonsense makes me wish they never put achievements in the game.

 

[Red John]

This whole nonsense makes me wish they never put achievements in the game.

I agree.

 

[Teije]

This whole nonsense makes me wish they never put achievements in the game.

Yes, achievements are meaningless for a single player game. Silly Steam stuff.

 

[aethel27]

Yes, achievements are meaningless for a single player game. Silly Steam stuff.

They came before Steam ....... shhhh don't tell people

 

[Teije]

They came before Steam ....... shhhh don't tell people

I know, I was indulging myself in some mild Steam bashing.

Hey, look on the bright side. With all of 1.2 "fanboy" vs. "whiner" threads, at least we're missing the usual plethora of "Steam is evil/the best" threads!