A conclusion for the 'AI controlled capitalist investment' vs 'player controlled capitalist investment' debate: LET'S FOUND A MIDDLE GROUND

[Alfred Dreyfus]

The Victoria community is clearly divided (inside and outside of this forum) between people who want the capitalist investment to be an AI simulation outside of players direct control and between people who want a capitalist investment directly controlled by the player. These days I've been on the radical side of the people who think the capitalist investment should be an AI simulation outside of players direct control.

But I actually think is in the best interest of all and for the game's development to unite again the community and make the feedback a bit more cohesive. Victoria games are very focused on politics and as we all know politics is the art of making pacts and agreements between people who think radically different from each other.

So my suggestion for the devs and for all of you guys is the following: why don't we all agree on just adopting a middle ground?

Something oriented to the idea that, for example, 50% of the capitalist investment should be controlled by the player and the other 50% should be controlled by the AI.

Of course I don't mean adopting this mechanic literally, but adopting a mechanic based on this 50%-50% balance. Something that would satisfy at least in some degree all of us, something that in some degree we all are going to enjoy, instead for going for a radical mechanic where 100% is AI control or one where 100% is player controlled.

@Wizzington what do you think?

If anyone has a suggestion or idea for a mechanic that could satisfy both types of player, please share it with the rest of us

 

[Drogan]

Centrism is not an in-game ideology.

 

[mikhail321]

Game rule?

 

[Pyoro]

Right, let's make something half-baked that nobody enjoys, that's never gone wrong ...

 

[SS Boss]

The actual debate will only start when we can play the game and see how it actually works. Theres no conclusion to make based on 3 dev diaries and a reddit post.

 

[wilcoxchar]

A separate capitalist investment pool and profits going to capitalists, with the player only making the final decision of what gets built to make sure there is still some amount of player interaction and decision making is the middle ground.

 

[Pellaken]

why not just do what people do/did in real life and use regulation, grants/tax breaks, and cronyism to 'direct' capitalists as needed?

 

[EUnderhill]

why not just do what people do/did in real life and use regulation, grants/tax breaks, and cronyism to 'direct' capitalists as needed?

Because I'd like to play it sometime before 2028.

 

[wilcoxchar]

why not just do what people do/did in real life and use regulation, grants/tax breaks, and cronyism to 'direct' capitalists as needed?

You mean the things that are already modeled in aggregate form by having a separate capitalist investment pool that the player 'directs' by building factories using that money?

 

[BrytonJSwan]

I feel like we can't really have a conclusion to a debate about a mechanic we haven't even seen yet and know next to nothing about

 

[Aramel]

It should be 73.47% to be realistic but otherwise I agree.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

It should be 73.47% to be realistic but otherwise I agree.

Nonononono. It should be 26.53% the other way.
We're just never going to get agreement on anything.

 

[ero_sk]

As I already suggested in a different thread, albeit it doesn't have to be a complete replacement for the investment pool.

A system similar to the way you can automate sector's developments in Stellaris. In Vicy 3 this could be applied at a state level, where player (and other countries' AI) could tell capitalists which industries to focus on. To make this more flexible, we could be allowed to choose multiple industries.

This could either completely remove player's control, use a shared investment pool to be used both by the capitalists AI and the player, or a hybrid approach where a portion of cash goes to the capitalists (AI) pool and another portion goes to the state pool for manual building.

Whatever the actual implementation, the gist of it remains the same- capitalists constructing buildings, with state having more power in directing the development of the industry in individual states.

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

The actual debate will only start when we can play the game and see how it actually works. Theres no conclusion to make based on 3 dev diaries and a reddit post.

he actually raises a good point, and it isn't unheard of for core mechanics of paradox games to change drastically relating to community feedback post-launch, just look at how much the buildings/pop system of stellaris changed in comparisson to when it was launched

 

[safferli]

You can post your ideas in the respective threads. This one is closed.