Bigger nations must have more problems!

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Still not establishing a credible basis for the need to change. History isn't, for reasons I already presented and were not refuted. No criteria, no viable history-based argument on this, period. For an argument to be valid it must be coherent, and without that criteria it is not .

Paradox games, whilst sandbox-y at times, are still historical strategies. You can't compare them to Civ, which is pure sandbox.

Historical accuracy is a valid justification, we got so many mechanics or flavour in these games thanks to this justification, whether it be Janissaries, Colonial Nations, Japanese Shogunate, tons of flavour events, Absolutism mechanic, which make gameplay more interesting. If historical accuracy doesn't matter to you, then you wouldn't mind these things not existing

As for Absolutist governments being fragile, that is indeed true. Periods of instability or sudden crises toppled many absolutist kingdoms/empires, most notably France(poor harvest in the years prior to the revolution, plus thinkers challenging the divine right to rule) and Tsarist Russia(Russia spent tons of money funding the Okhrana and still had to fight off numerous rebellions and in the end the 1905 revolution forced Nikolay II to establish a constitution and form a Parliament)
​

 

[inreadible]

Of course you shouldn't lose your stuff at high power levels, don't be silly. And I'm not proposing a threshold at "oh, at 600 development your empire magically explodes". In CK2, once you've reached the size you want, an easy majority of your interactions are going to be with people within your own realm. When you're just one province, that's not true; your interacting with a ton of people outside of you. The type of actions you undertake and who you do them to are directly impacted by your size.

In EU4, to me, this would translate to some indeterminate system of internal politics which would require more attention as you grow. With very few provinces, everything is close enough to your capital that you can keep a firm hand on things. At some intermediate number, the noble dynasties or what have you are growing a bit wayward. And then at some point, it requires the players pretty much nonstop attention to keep them happy. At some soft limit, your skill in managing what you have is reached and further expansion must be indirect - beating up your enemies to prevent them from growing too strong while also holding your country together, forging strategic alliances to prevent those nations from attacking you, guaranteeing countries that could provide land to your enemies, etc. And if you don't do that for whatever reason - some bad combination of events, inability to declare war, etc, then they band together and well now all of a sudden you're being knocked down a peg or two. Not to your destruction - they'll eventually run into the same problems you did, of course - but you won't be on top anymore.

That's what I mean by raising the difficulty of challenges in this case. Not that you get weaker, but your problems and difficulties grow in correlation with how close to top dog you are. Either you choose not to push yourself to the limit and not ever reach number one, or you do to maximize your power at the risk of eventual collapse.

(Edit: of course, this is just the GSG solution to the problem. The 4x version is just to have your enemies blob as hard as you do so that at every given point you have an enemy of comparable strength to fight, but as noted before, this leads to the classic 4x problem of at some point, sooner or later, you will be the last man standing)

I understand your point. But what would you suggest the changes be in actual in-game examples. For example would "And then at some point, it requires the players pretty much nonstop attention to keep them happy." mean rebels up your ass until you grow tired of it and let some provinces go? I wouldn't mind more internal interactions if it actually brought something to the game. But if we are talking more estates or more rebels I'm going to cry.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Historical accuracy is a valid justification

By itself it isn't and can't be. See post #29. If you're not able to create criteria that sorts between "okay deviations from history" and "not-okay deviations from history" consistently, using history as the basis for your argument is demonstrably irrational and self-inconsistent. There is no reason to favor such an argument over any other incoherent argument.

 

[Ixal]

So would limiting expansion make the game any more challenging than it is or would the challenge end even earlier in the game than currently? The suggested changes would shoot the AI nations in the knee also, so instead of a 2000 dev player fighting against a 1000 dev Ottomans we might end up with a 1500 dev player fighting against a 500 dev Ottomans. I really can't see restricting blobbing as a way to make the game more challenging as pretty much any change would hit the AI harder than a decent player. Unless we are talking about player only changes, but that would just be stupid.

The changes are not primarily intended to prevent blobbing, although that would be a good side effect, but to add some challenge to mid-late game when you outblobbed everyone. The more you blob, the more you would have to work to keep your realm together.

High level play in RPG is notoriously easier than low level, in terms of character levels. You have more options + more mechanical interactions and if you optimize them, same-level enemies become increasingly less difficult. Final fantasy had to gouge stats in optional dungeons just to force players to try in the late game. Even Dark Souls, a very different type of RPG, shares this reality. Once you're high enough level in that series, additional levels mean very little and your damage output can be nuts.

Progression is that way in games, and hard to avoid. The best practice IMO was established > 20 years ago in the Warlords series (back when it was really good, Warlords 2 and 3) and MOO. These games had ways of naming a functional runaway the winner without slogging through to an end outcome everyone knew would happen, and integrated such a victory condition into the game.

EU 4 doesn't have a VC, so you set whatever goals you want or use preset ones aka achievements in SP. In MP I guess you can play for score, but it's kind of silly. Mostly it's a last man/alliance group standing thing.

Then you play the wrong RPGs. High level combat in Baldurs Gate 2 is not automatically more easy then low level combats, especially when enemy spellcasters or monsters with special abilities are involved (I hate you, Mind Flayers).

That games get more easy the more powerful you become is certainly not an universal rule and there are also degrees in which this happens.
Just compare EU4 to CK2. CK2 adds more challenges the larger you grow, be it harder to please factions or the work needed to enact law changes. In EU4 on the other hand blobbing only makes things more easy and there is no counter mechanic to add new challenges once you dwarf every other country.

 

[Jules Brunet]

Civ 5 had a contrived expansion limit, akin to limiting nations in EU 4 to 1000 development and massively penalizing further expansion so much that doing so hurts you (IE no incentive). Suggestions on this thread seem to want this kind of idea present in EU 4, but it was a cancer to civ 5 and I'm not seeing why spreading it into EU makes EU better. Rather than artificially limiting skill variance, I'd rather see won games end faster.

Well, I wouldn't want something as limiting than in CIV 5 (I did prefer CIV 4 for that point), but still adding 9 dev to a 2000 dev empire shouldn't represent the same boost than 9 dev to a 300 dev kingdom. Big empire should punch under their weight, be it with some new unaccepted culture mechanics or anything else.

But what would you suggest the changes be in actual in-game examples. For example would "And then at some point, it requires the players pretty much nonstop attention to keep them happy." mean rebels up your ass until you grow tired of it and let some provinces go? I wouldn't mind more internal interactions if it actually brought something to the game. But if we are talking more estates or more rebels I'm going to cry.

One idea that I saw somewhere else was about Culture. Adding a better mechanics where too many unaccepted culture could, for example, increase inflation/ corruption/ cause random event that convert the culture of other province. And in opposition, having low unaccepted culture could provoke event that switch their culture to your main culture, for example.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, I wouldn't want something as limiting than in CIV 5 (I did prefer CIV 4 for that point), but still adding 9 dev to a 2000 dev empire shouldn't represent the same boost than 9 dev to a 300 dev kingdom. Big empire should punch under their weight, be it with some new unaccepted culture mechanics or anything else.

States/territories do that presently.

Or they would, if trade companies weren't juiced into the stratosphere out of nowhere :/.

Then you play the wrong RPGs. High level combat in Baldurs Gate 2 is not automatically more easy then low level combats, especially when enemy spellcasters or monsters with special abilities are involved (I hate you, Mind Flayers).

This is the same game where you can run around with preset spell combos, cast versions of yourself that cast deadly spells, and cough up ridiculous game-breaking summons (casted by your clones too rather than directly!). Warriors are weaker, but HLAs in general are pretty breaking when used well.

 

[Jules Brunet]

States/territories do that presently.

Or they would, if trade companies weren't juiced into the stratosphere out of nowhere :/.

Kind of true, but the number are, in my opinion too high. We are looking at something like 53 state that one can easily get by the end of the game. In this regard, I would do 2 changes: first swap the finisher of Admin with the one from Expansion: I do think that they fit better thematically in the other group, and since Admin is quite a nobrainer, it would make it less an automatic and makes Expansion maybe more interesting, if not situational. The other: reduce the number of state for Empire by 5 (the same as Kingdom). Empire already give cultural Union, which is huge. And it is an early boost quite easy to get to the number of state, depending of the starting point.

 

[inreadible]

One idea that I saw somewhere else was about Culture. Adding a better mechanics where too many unaccepted culture could, for example, increase inflation/ corruption/ cause random event that convert the culture of other province. And in opposition, having low unaccepted culture could provoke event that switch their culture to your main culture, for example.

Think about that in practice. Instead of bringing something more to do internally, this sounds to me like admin power and cash sinks. Nothing more than a few clicks of reduce inflation and using more money to buy off corruption. As I said, I am willing to see changes done that actually add something to do outside of wars, but (one click or a slider) monarch power sinks and gold sinks are not something I consider playing.

 

[Bearjuden]

I understand your point. But what would you suggest the changes be in actual in-game examples. For example would "And then at some point, it requires the players pretty much nonstop attention to keep them happy." mean rebels up your ass until you grow tired of it and let some provinces go? I wouldn't mind more internal interactions if it actually brought something to the game. But if we are talking more estates or more rebels I'm going to cry.

Not rebels. Rebels are (part of) what you get when you fail to successfully manage your country (which is what I'm driving at).

In my head (this is just one proposal, the field of possibilities is as endless as your imagination), you expand the nobility estate to be a number of actual dynasties. They, alongside the regular two estates, would fight each other, support or oppose you, they get into the government as your advisors and bureaucrats, they allow you or block you from passing decisions and policies and laws; the dynastic head would have a personality just like your ruler does, etc. Think of it as the families from CK2 who were powerful enough to demand a seat on your council are just important enough to still be represented in game as a dynastic estate. Everyone else gets abstracted away as a part of whoever they would be loyal to. The bigger you are, the more they demand, and the more powerful they are, the harder it is to appease them. Poor management leads to things like what really happened to the Commonwealth (nobility infighting paralyze the country) or France (support for the nobility at the expense of an increasingly influential bourgeoisie initiated a revolt).

 

[inreadible]

Not rebels. Rebels are (part of) what you get when you fail to successfully manage your country (which is what I'm driving at).

In my head (this is just one proposal, the field of possibilities is as endless as your imagination), you expand the nobility estate to be a number of actual dynasties. They, alongside the regular two estates, would fight each other, support or oppose you, they get into the government as your advisors and bureaucrats, they allow you or block you from passing decisions and policies and laws; the dynastic head would have a personality just like your ruler does, etc. Think of it as the families from CK2 who were powerful enough to demand a seat on your council are just important enough to still be represented in game as a dynastic estate. Everyone else gets abstracted away as a part of whoever they would be loyal to. The bigger you are, the more they demand, and the more powerful they are, the harder it is to appease them. Poor management leads to things like what really happened to the Commonwealth (nobility infighting paralyze the country) or France (support for the nobility at the expense of an increasingly influential bourgeoisie initiated a revolt).

Ok, I see what you're getting at. Still, I'd like to hear more about the implementation in practice. Like how to keep them happy? Would you have to pay gold relative to their size and if you didn't they would give you less manpower and how would all this scale? Or what do you have in mind?

 

[Bearjuden]

Ok, I see what you're getting at. Still, I'd like to hear more about the implementation in practice. Like how to keep them happy? Would you have to pay gold relative to their size and if you didn't they would give you less manpower and how would all this scale? Or what do you have in mind?

I've tried not to narrow down my hopes too much. I'm not a game designer and I don't claim to be an expert, so bear in mind this is just me spitballing. If anyone thinks they have a better solution, I'm all ears - I'm just a history hobbyist who want a game that plays through one of the most fascinating times in history while resulting in something I feel like could have actually happened.

First off, I would say the goal is not to keep everyone happy, because that is unreasonable. It's hard to please everybody, and if we set out with the goal of not recreating history, but establishing a plausible history, then the idea you can make everyone happy is a bit silly. Maybe once in a while a super talented ruler and all the right circumstances come along and you can do that, and voila, you have a naturally occurring golden age, but it shouldn't be a standard thing. If someone is happy, odds are someone else (their rival, likely) is unhappy. Your goal is more just to keep enough people happy that the unhappy people aren't willing to do anything about it.

As to implementation, if you're not going to have each country's estates have their own full AI (this would I assume be computational hell and I could never play the game again), I would have a bunch of events that happen on a fairly frequent pulse regarding the various interactions between the two, and then given them miniature AIs that only decides relationships among very select groups: the other estates (both dynastic and other), the ruling dynasty, neighbouring countries (maybe), rivals, and other countries whose rulers share their dynasty. A lot of basic mechanics would be similar: you assign territory to each family, they are loyal or disloyal, they have influence levels. Other than that it turns into a little bit of CK2 sprinkled into your EU4. They fight if an event fires saying they started fighting. They steal land if one of them wins. They serve as advisors if you need them to (in exchange for influence), they rebel (if they're disloyal and feeling bullish), they permit or oppose the implementation of policies and decisions. They have cultures and personalities that inform their relationships to everybody.

And the bigger you are, the more they demand, and the more those events fire. The more mana and gold you have to spend to appease them. If you can do so, they are a boon. If not, they are a weight dragging you down. Just like in history.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

By itself it isn't and can't be. See post #29. If you're not able to create criteria that sorts between "okay deviations from history" and "not-okay deviations from history" consistently, using history as the basis for your argument is demonstrably irrational and self-inconsistent. There is no reason to favor such an argument over any other incoherent argument.

What if I can? What if the designers at Paradox can?
Post #29 mainly focuses on things that would overhaul the engine.
How does introducing drawbacks to Absolutism demand an overhaul? Lower the benefits, introduce negative modifiers, maybe some new disasters, this isn't something that will break the game or demand a complete revamp, everything needed is already in the game code.
While it is true that fun > historical accuracy, what drew us to these games IS the history. Fun and history can correlate to balance out certain mechanics
Some unrealistic mechanics are core to the game, that we will have to bear with. But there are many that can be worked on to bring an overall better experience for almost everyone

 

[$ilent_$trider]

I've tried not to narrow down my hopes too much. I'm not a game designer and I don't claim to be an expert, so bear in mind this is just me spitballing. If anyone thinks they have a better solution, I'm all ears - I'm just a history hobbyist who want a game that plays through one of the most fascinating times in history while resulting in something I feel like could have actually happened.

First off, I would say the goal is not to keep everyone happy, because that is unreasonable. It's hard to please everybody, and if we set out with the goal of not recreating history, but establishing a plausible history, then the idea you can make everyone happy is a bit silly. Maybe once in a while a super talented ruler and all the right circumstances come along and you can do that, and voila, you have a naturally occurring golden age, but it shouldn't be a standard thing. If someone is happy, odds are someone else (their rival, likely) is unhappy. Your goal is more just to keep enough people happy that the unhappy people aren't willing to do anything about it.

As to implementation, if you're not going to have each country's estates have their own full AI (this would I assume be computational hell and I could never play the game again), I would have a bunch of events that happen on a fairly frequent pulse regarding the various interactions between the two, and then given them miniature AIs that only decides relationships among very select groups: the other estates (both dynastic and other), the ruling dynasty, neighbouring countries (maybe), rivals, and other countries whose rulers share their dynasty. A lot of basic mechanics would be similar: you assign territory to each family, they are loyal or disloyal, they have influence levels. Other than that it turns into a little bit of CK2 sprinkled into your EU4. They fight if an event fires saying they started fighting. They steal land if one of them wins. They serve as advisors if you need them to (in exchange for influence), they rebel (if they're disloyal and feeling bullish), they permit or oppose the implementation of policies and decisions. They have cultures and personalities that inform their relationships to everybody.

And the bigger you are, the more they demand, and the more those events fire. The more mana and gold you have to spend to appease them. If you can do so, they are a boon. If not, they are a weight dragging you down. Just like in history.

Most of what you say here could be done with the current interaction of estates IF they wouldn't gravitate towards they neutral spot of 50%
If any loyalty interaction were to be "permanent" and not shift back to 50%, then you could have the kind of interactions you are asking for (and then maybe, create 2 more tiers of interaction with the estates at maybe 10% and below and 90% and above loyalty?)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What if I can? What if the designers at Paradox can?

Can what? The developers have occasionally made self-inconsistent changes in the past and the game became worse for the decisions, despite its generally improving trend. That's part of the reason I have incentive to argue against it happening. There's no rule dictating developers or anybody else have to be rational after all, but it's unlikely to result in a good outcome.

Some unrealistic mechanics are core to the game, that we will have to bear with. But there are many that can be worked on to bring an overall better experience for almost everyone

You're still not establishing criteria that builds a gameplay basis for what necessitates change in this case. Admin efficiency and later absolutism were both introduced as mechanics to speed up the end game deliberately. Absolutism is conceptually better, in that you have to do things to attain it, including some that are costly.

What I don't want to see happen is a skill-equalized mechanic, or one that stalls out a won run. If you can introduce meaningful choice/threat of failure into the mid-late game in a way that skillful play can consistently manage it + choices aren't obvious, I'm not opposed. That's not the direction I've seen most of the suggestions here take though.

And regardless of that, the reasoning is important. You don't, for example, need an engine change to alter coalitions or war score. Those are every bit as unrealistic as anything else described in this thread (there are zero historical examples that work like the mechanics in question). These are deemed mostly fine or accepted. For some reason, large empires aren't in this thread. There is a reason that is the case, and that reason is not "history".

Keep in mind that WC being possible is by design intent (stated to be the case directly by Johan, and implicitly through achievements). Any mechanic that would ultimately constrain large empires would result in either a design change, or something that is *still* necessarily not going to align with history (unless we are willing to accept that WC in this period was possible). There really does need to be better rationale to support a change, and player thought/interaction with a proposed change (IE the gameplay).

 

[Bearjuden]

Most of what you say here could be done with the current interaction of estates IF they wouldn't gravitate towards they neutral spot of 50%
If any loyalty interaction were to be "permanent" and not shift back to 50%, then you could have the kind of interactions you are asking for (and then maybe, create 2 more tiers of interaction with the estates at maybe 10% and below and 90% and above loyalty?)

You could, it's true. While it would be much deeper if they expanded it, the core already exists in some fashion. There's another critical problem right now though (which is sort of related), which is that it isn't aggressive enough. Unhappy estates currently means very little. The nobility is unhappy, you have higher maintenance and slower manpower regeneration. That is wildly less punishing than what happened in real life when the aristocracy collectively revolted against a monarch. The burghers are unhappy, your trade efficiency is lower! Boo hoo. Between their lack of agency (even when they're at low loyalty and high influence, you still fundamentally control their every move) and lack of punishing features, they fail to serve the purpose they were intended for.

In short? These mechanics are were designed by people who, at that time for whatever reason, were afraid or otherwise unwilling to hurt the players who use them. Paradox gave us advantages without drawbacks, but in real life those advantages do come with drawbacks. Actions come with consequences both good and ill. (and this in turn harkens back to my original point: in 4x games, advantages do tend to outweigh any given disadvantage they offer. Conquering too many cities in Civ too quickly will hurt you, but the general principal of more cities = better is almost always true; and so it is in EU4. In a more plausible game, more GSG than 4x, this will not always be true)

 

[bbqftw]

Kind of true, but the number are, in my opinion too high. We are looking at something like 53 state that one can easily get by the end of the game. In this regard, I would do 2 changes: first swap the finisher of Admin with the one from Expansion: I do think that they fit better thematically in the other group, and since Admin is quite a nobrainer, it would make it less an automatic and makes Expansion maybe more interesting, if not situational. The other: reduce the number of state for Empire by 5 (the same as Kingdom). Empire already give cultural Union, which is huge. And it is an early boost quite easy to get to the number of state, depending of the starting point.

nobody cares about states past 1500, tcs are that gamewarping. I think I state core an average of around 10 provinces in the 16th century. Most of those are gold mines.

If you're going to kneecap the blobstyle you must start at trade companies

Even then there are workarounds, you will have to nerf CNs next

 

[Sunspawn]

snip

I feel that ideally, we would eventually get a CK-EU hybrid that dynamically and gradually progresses from CK2-style feudalism to EU-style nation-states without magically disappearing things.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

You could, it's true. While it would be much deeper if they expanded it, the core already exists in some fashion. There's another critical problem right now though (which is sort of related), which is that it isn't aggressive enough. Unhappy estates currently means very little. The nobility is unhappy, you have higher maintenance and slower manpower regeneration. That is wildly less punishing than what happened in real life when the aristocracy collectively revolted against a monarch. The burghers are unhappy, your trade efficiency is lower! Boo hoo. Between their lack of agency (even when they're at low loyalty and high influence, you still fundamentally control their every move) and lack of punishing features, they fail to serve the purpose they were intended for.

In short? These mechanics are were designed by people who, at that time for whatever reason, were afraid or otherwise unwilling to hurt the players who use them. Paradox gave us advantages without drawbacks, but in real life those advantages do come with drawbacks. Actions come with consequences both good and ill. (and this in turn harkens back to my original point: in 4x games, advantages do tend to outweigh any given disadvantage they offer. Conquering too many cities in Civ too quickly will hurt you, but the general principal of more cities = better is almost always true; and so it is in EU4. In a more plausible game, more GSG than 4x, this will not always be true)

Oh, I agree entirely, the only problem you have is when their influence is high which might trigger a disaster but it doesn't take into consideration the loyalty of the estate towards the government. I mean, if they are already influential and loyal, why would they trigger a change of government? One better way would be for the estate to ask more stuff as they become more influential to keep their loyalty. Granted, if you have a disloyal estate they increase the unrest on the provinces that they have, but most of the time that is only a problem for a nomad steppe government at the first 15 years of the game if they suddenly grow disloyal and you were not able to make any advances towards your neighbors.

Perhaps a new kind of estate should be created for everyone to something similar like the dhimmi exist for the Ottomans, something that would exemplify a semi-autonomous self government for any non-accepted culture you have in your empire, and if they are not granted this recognition they might try to create a new tag?

Anyway, mostly we are spit balling here, but I agree that most of the stuff to make internal management of the country and prevent blobbing for the sake of blobbing could be achieved with estates.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Can what? The developers have occasionally made self-inconsistent changes in the past and the game became worse for the decisions, despite its generally improving trend. That's part of the reason I have incentive to argue against it happening. There's no rule dictating developers or anybody else have to be rational after all, but it's unlikely to result in a good outcome.



You're still not establishing criteria that builds a gameplay basis for what necessitates change in this case. Admin efficiency and later absolutism were both introduced as mechanics to speed up the end game deliberately. Absolutism is conceptually better, in that you have to do things to attain it, including some that are costly.

What I don't want to see happen is a skill-equalized mechanic, or one that stalls out a won run. If you can introduce meaningful choice/threat of failure into the mid-late game in a way that skillful play can consistently manage it + choices aren't obvious, I'm not opposed. That's not the direction I've seen most of the suggestions here take though.

And regardless of that, the reasoning is important. You don't, for example, need an engine change to alter coalitions or war score. Those are every bit as unrealistic as anything else described in this thread (there are zero historical examples that work like the mechanics in question). These are deemed mostly fine or accepted. For some reason, large empires aren't in this thread. There is a reason that is the case, and that reason is not "history".

Keep in mind that WC being possible is by design intent (stated to be the case directly by Johan, and implicitly through achievements). Any mechanic that would ultimately constrain large empires would result in either a design change, or something that is *still* necessarily not going to align with history (unless we are willing to accept that WC in this period was possible). There really does need to be better rationale to support a change, and player thought/interaction with a proposed change (IE the gameplay).

Was one of those decisions Admin efficiency?

The criteria depend from mechanic to mechanic. You can't judge for example dumping into Stability by the same criteria as Absolutism. That's not how it works man

I made a proposal for that already. Make Absolutist governments more fragile, like they were in history. You don't even read my posts man...

Coalitions did exist during the EU timeframe, during the Napoleonic wars. They behaved differently, but overall this is a healthy mechanic, it just needs some tweaking. Why wouldn't nations who fear you, the expansionist, ally to protect each other? Heck, some nations formed PUs because of common threats(Spain and Austria). Whilst it was not a common thing IRL, coalitions make sense to some extent.
As someone who actively plays Victoria 2, I assure you, AE and coalitions are better than the former Infamy system.

It is one thing to make a large empire, it is another when you take half of Ming in a single war and not make the entire world want to rip your guts out because of late game mechanics.
Calm your ego.

There are many ways that large empires can be nerfed without overhauling the engine. From increased minimum autonomy due to distance to nerfing Humanist Ideas and Absolutism. Most, if not all, have proper arguments, historical and gameplay related

 

[$ilent_$trider]

I think that Absolutism should increase overall national unrest.
So at 100 Absolutism you should have:

+5% Discipline
+40% Administrative efficiency
−50% Foreign core duration
+5 National Unrest

Or something like that. Although, I think that 40 Admin efficiency is ridiculous high and it should be nerfed or removed entirely