I don´t understand all this hype, the only thing new that he showed was an exploit to get DIP/ADM points which btw it is boring as hell to reproduce. I had several wtf moments like Jake not knowing basic game mechanics like the neighbor bonus, forgetting about stuff all the time and his usual stubbornness (arrogance?) that translates in waste of time and inefficiency. Let’s hope he gets his s*** together or this will end up like the Mughals WC.
[Cheese][Gamey][Munchkins][Trashy blobfest] DDRJake doing it again with Ryukyu
- Thread starter oblio-
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You cannot make a blanket statement about what should be done with "exploits." First of all, what is an "exploit" is in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, even if everyone agrees it is an "exploit", it isn't always clear that the cure wouldn't be worse than the sickness. So that means that, if you want to get up in arms about an "exploit", you have to propose a specific "fix" that is doable under the current programming and doesn't create a worse situation than what is being "fixed."
So, for example, using the missions to create excess points/money/prestige/etc. can certainly be considered an exploit, and I think most would agree; it's certainly not what the designers intended for the concept. However, "fixing" it has its own issues. And no, it doesn't have to be the case that three options are always available (notice in Jake's early going, he's often only given one mission choice). But even if a "cooldown" timer was created, all that would mean is Paradox would likely have to come up with a bunch of new missions that offer options after you've used up the ordinarily served up missions. Question whether this would be worth the "fix".
Still, in the abstract, if a game designer sees someone abusing a game mechanic, by using it to accomplish something unintended, that changes the game by making something possible otherwise intended as impossible, I think it's not a surprise if the game designer attempts to abort that situation with a "fix". A good designer comes up with a way to prevent it that does not itself fundamentally alter the way the game works. A desperate game designer, maybe not so much.
Personally, I'm not as impressed with DDRJake's Ryukyu game for the simple fact that he effectively "cheats" at the start, by exploiting the missions. He, of course, only has to answer to his own conscience about it. As it is, I'm not sure the way that second war of his went that he managed to leverage his exploits into very much of an advantage.
So, for example, using the missions to create excess points/money/prestige/etc. can certainly be considered an exploit, and I think most would agree; it's certainly not what the designers intended for the concept. However, "fixing" it has its own issues. And no, it doesn't have to be the case that three options are always available (notice in Jake's early going, he's often only given one mission choice). But even if a "cooldown" timer was created, all that would mean is Paradox would likely have to come up with a bunch of new missions that offer options after you've used up the ordinarily served up missions. Question whether this would be worth the "fix".
Still, in the abstract, if a game designer sees someone abusing a game mechanic, by using it to accomplish something unintended, that changes the game by making something possible otherwise intended as impossible, I think it's not a surprise if the game designer attempts to abort that situation with a "fix". A good designer comes up with a way to prevent it that does not itself fundamentally alter the way the game works. A desperate game designer, maybe not so much.
Personally, I'm not as impressed with DDRJake's Ryukyu game for the simple fact that he effectively "cheats" at the start, by exploiting the missions. He, of course, only has to answer to his own conscience about it. As it is, I'm not sure the way that second war of his went that he managed to leverage his exploits into very much of an advantage.
You can get a shock 4 general at like 10 tradition if you roll enough times. I don't see how what he did is materially more problematic than simply restarting until you get lucky and you have 3-4 shock while Champa has 0-1. Even without the tradition, you'll win that war.
Is start scumming an exploit too? Is it cheating? Is there a fundamental difference between start scumming and save scumming rulers in starts like Aztec, aside from time investment alone?
The game provides a framework of things you can and can't do, and expecting players to conform to the expectations of others is awkward. Jake uses precisely 0 cheats as of so far in the objective sense, and almost certainly won't in the future.
It should be obvious by now that missions remain the primary source of DDRJake's exploits. The mission system should be the focus of the next expansion. It's just woefully inadequate for the game as it is.
The problem isn't "exploits." The problem is a half-finished game with core systems that were never finished.
The problem isn't "exploits." The problem is a half-finished game with core systems that were never finished.
"Cheating" can have a legalistic meaning (broke the rules) and a moralistic meaning (did something you weren't supposed to to gain an "unfair" advantage). Examples of moralistic cheating which is not legally cheating abound: Luis Suárez in 2010 handling the Ghana shot off th line is a classic example. But whereas if you cheat in a legal sense you have to answer to whatever penalties there are in the system, when you cheat in a moralistic sense, you answer only to your own conscience (as I pointed out). Of course, in either case, you may face the opprobrium of those who observed you "cheat".
Multiple re-starts of a game to try and obtain a lucky initial position or early-game outcome are not, in most people's minds, "cheating" in either sense. After all, you have to go through the process of the load-up, the initial moves, etc. to find out if you've been lucky, and you may have to re-do that multiple times. By comparison, save-and-reload to avoid poor outcomes may not be legally cheating, but we both know that they are on morally shaky ground in most people's opinion. They are like the mulligan in golf (one of my father's friends used to comment on them, "Any damn fool can hit it the second time"
). If I save-reload because I'm playing a new game/version and I want to see what the outcome of a decision I'm unsure of using would be without having to potentially ruin my game, then okay. If I save-reload while I'm attempting an achievement and want to avoid unlucky consequences then, well, there's a reason most "ironman" modes attempt to restrict or discourage this idea.If you want to play a game where your only limits are what is allowed by the "framework of things you can and can't do", be my guest. Your conscience is the only thing you have to answer to. But I've played plenty of MP where one or more of the participants enjoyed exploring the boundaries of such behavior, and in my opinion, those games often got fairly contentious.
How about, I want exploits because they are fun to help you out as a weak nation?
It's always the same. People find ways to enjoy the game by using "exploits", Pdox limits player choices even more with next patch. That's how it works here...
In this case, however, the "moralistic" side of the definition is questionable. What contrived measurable framework do you use to determine cheating on moralistic grounds?
Yes they do, but on what basis? Fundamentally, what has someone who got lucky due to reload actually accomplished beyond someone who attains an identical-in-every-way result with a simple reload? You're reloading in both instances, one earlier and more repetitive. You can of course draw this line further up or down the scale, and you also have the question of the moralistic framework in the first place. Generally, an "achievement" is something one earns. If one does not equate "time contribution" to "achieving", you're left with the choices a player makes in the game that influence the outcome. If you remove time investment, both approaches to, say, rolling a good replacement for Aztec's heir are identical in every respect. One takes longer, but in terms of skill and knowledge related to attain that good heir, the quality of play towards attaining it is identical. The problem is that this rationality is a slippery slope.
In MP, the big issue is that not all players are aware of the hidden, unstated rules and thus believe they're operating under different rules than other players believe. "Don't use exploits" is like a neon sign just waiting for some idiocy. Did that guy abuse missions for 100 AT, or was he just lucky? Is vassal/annexing Jolof as Brunei in 1490 and then finishing westernization by 1520 an exploit? Well, the rules said you can't deliberately sell provinces to westernize, but that's not what happened there, is it...so exploit or not for a Portuguese player to agree to allow this even if only temporarily?
Then people disagree, a GM makes a ruling, and that ruling is often a rules-made-up-as-you-go junk outcome...especially because vassaling a nation an then annexing is not exploitative in the vast majority of gamers' viewpoints, until you vassal the wrong nation, which wasn't ever explicitly stated in the rules, and isn't the only way to do it.
They are trying to make a challenging strategy game, which is both interesting to play & fairly realistic, & conforms to what they would like their audience to play. I cannot understand how Paradox ruins peoples games by removing them. Paradox itself gives a list of cheats you can use from the console, & the game is easy to edit to whatever you want.
I also note that DDRJake & others like him don't go around complaining all the time an exploit is moved, but see it as a challenge to find another way to achieve their goal. I have got lots of time for people like him, but not the constant moaners who want to achieve these same goals but want others to find out how to do it for them.
+1 to both.
The only way Paradox is fixing missions is by rebuilding the mechanic from the ground up. With the current implementation there are always going to be open loopholes unless every mission is changed to give rewards to stats that have caps easily reachable by normal means (prestige, legitimacy, etc). Which is unfun.
And protectorates...ugh.
So edgy.
On top of TMIT's reply, you're using a false example. Suarez was given a red card and a penalty kick was awarded against his team, the ultimate punishment available to the refs to administer. In other words, the system penalized his blatant cheating, and I still remember his crying face as he was leaving the pitch.
What DDRJake's trying to do is very difficult, going on a conquest spree keeping Religious unit around 75% (if I understood what he intends to do).
I don't yet know if he can manage the WC, hope so. Anyway, the exploits he's using I think it's useful only for Ryukyu, maybe for the former Mongol Khanate, not for the main nations.
I don't doubt the missions will be fixed, neither that bothers me. What really bothers me are the evident bugs wating to be corrected (the focus one being the most ludicrous).
EDIT: AH, and if they remove Protectorates to avoid the cheesy move, well, I won't miss them
I don't yet know if he can manage the WC, hope so. Anyway, the exploits he's using I think it's useful only for Ryukyu, maybe for the former Mongol Khanate, not for the main nations.
I don't doubt the missions will be fixed, neither that bothers me. What really bothers me are the evident bugs wating to be corrected (the focus one being the most ludicrous).
EDIT: AH, and if they remove Protectorates to avoid the cheesy move, well, I won't miss them
Last edited:
Interesting stuff by DDRJake, as always. The amount of micro needed for this keeps me from even wanting to try it. I'm curious to see how far he can extend the mission exploit. Pagans don't get very much missionary strength, and even releasing vassals (who don't always get religious ideas) to do their own conversions only goes so far and so fast. Not to mention once he gets past 200/300 provinces he won't have the colonists for the quick completion of the missions. He mentioned another pagan specific exploit coming up once he's larger, so it sound's like he'll switch to that.
So, Sir DRRJake is proving that this game is just as bad as when it was first released if not worse. How sad is that? Paradox, any comments?
It won't, but he'll no longer be able to drop a single colony to influence his unity by a full 1%.
Hello, PDS developers reading this thread!
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the difference for the incoming hotfix. You're welcome!
I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the difference for the incoming hotfix. You're welcome!
Right now, he has 2 and the most he can get is 4 with expansion and quantity policy. 1 is currently enough to go over the magic 1% line to fulfill the mission. Also, the colonist takes only 6 days to get to the colony, creating an incredibly low mission turn around time. If he gets bigger, however, he will need more colonies and farther away colonies. The distance problem will at least triple the turn around time (though it is still fast), and Europe/Asia/Africa has way more provinces than 400, so he can't use this trick the whole way through. It seems like he is going to use this exploit to gobble China and India, then expand normally, and use admin efficiency for a mass war at the end.
He said he has one more trick and that it's pagan specific. I would guess that it has something to do with the pagan CB.
I suspect they'd say "Well, we were unaware that the previously widely unknown ability to cheese protectorates and a few missions were resulting in our entire game to be "bad. We thank you for your statement and will immediately fix those issues to make the game "good".
Or not - really - could be that the game still is good, many, many people have a lot of fun with it (judging by the number of posts of people with over 1k hours logged, seems to be pretty decent), and there are still exploitable loopholes that will be patched, until the next one comes up, as , in reality, its impossible to make a game this complex completely unexploitable.