CK3 - Dev Diary #0 - The Vision

[DreadLindwyrm]

No I can't select my favorite starting county because there are a lack of counts around , especially in early 800 AD.

Well, you can start as any count *that exists* by repeated clicking on the county.

But sure, some counties don't start out independent, or held by someone other than the duke/king/emperor - because they tend to hold up to their domain limit at the start.

But you can choose any existing starting location, so to say you can't choose a starting county is incorrect.
You shouldn't (for example) be able to strip the Pope of his county of Rome and start there as a count.

 

[Prometheus_1]

Well, you can start as any count *that exists* by repeated clicking on the county.

But sure, some counties don't start out independent, or held by someone other than the duke/king/emperor - because they tend to hold up to their domain limit at the start.

But you can choose any existing starting location, so to say you can't choose a starting county is incorrect.
You shouldn't (for example) be able to strip the Pope of his county of Rome and start there as a count.

No I cant pick any starting location as count, there are too few of them , you are forced to play as Duke with all holds.

 

[Pellaken]

No I cant pick any starting location as count, there are too few of them , you are forced to play as Duke with all holds.

you can play as a count. just click through all the levels. you just cant play as count a county without a count. some counties have counts, and you can indeed play as them.

 

[Quickmelty]

can you please add in byzantine government already. vassal contracts are crap.

 

[Karlington]

No I cant pick any starting location as count, there are too few of them , you are forced to play as Duke with all holds.

There are tons of counts all over the place. I've started in both dates and had no problems finding them.

 

[Cymsdale]

Player Stories: All events and scripted content should feel relevant, impactful and immersive in relation to the underlying simulation. That way, players will perceive and remember stories - their own stories, not the developers’ stories.

My player story. I painted the map over ~600 years while everyone in my realm committed constant adultery. The end.

 

[legalboxerbriefs]

• Player Freedom and Progression: We want to cater to all player fantasies we can reasonably accommodate, allowing players to shape their ruler, heirs, dynasty and even religion to their liking - though there should of course be appropriate challenges to overcome.
• Player Stories: All events and scripted content should feel relevant, impactful and immersive in relation to the underlying simulation. That way, players will perceive and remember stories - their own stories, not the developers’ stories.

These design goals seem at odds with (1) not allowing same-sex marriage or same-sex concubines in the base game, and (2) hard-coding to prevent mods from allowing same-sex marriage.

 

[-=Hawk=-]

i found Knights abuse mechanics:

U can forbid and allow Knights to join army to fast travel them.

For example: when i raid England shoes, with whole my army and knights, my neighbourhoods from Scandinavia decides to raid my lands.
So i forbid 9 of knights to participate in my raid and allow.
Next step i call them for arms near enemies riding army they summons instantly, even if my Knights loose this fight i immediately perform those steps again and again attack enemies non stop so my army of only knights easily vipe enemies forces.

Its obvious abusing of this system, please fix this.

With best regards

 

[JtW]

i found Knights abuse mechanics:

U can forbid and allow Knights to join army to fast travel them.

For example: when i raid England shoes, with whole my army and knights, my neighbourhoods from Scandinavia decides to raid my lands.
So i forbid 9 of knights to participate in my raid and allow.
Next step i call them for arms near enemies riding army they summons instantly, even if my Knights loose this fight i immediately perform those steps again and again attack enemies non stop so my army of only knights easily vipe enemies forces.

Its obvious abusing of this system, please fix this.

With best regards

Could you post it in the bug reporting forum? Sounds problematic.

 

[Djisma]

My player story. I painted the map over ~600 years while everyone in my realm committed constant adultery. The end.

They should really add a "Loyal" trait for males/females not all people are adulterers or cheaters, some people will die loyal to their loved ones.
Is actually very simple, any character with the Loyal Trait will be immune to seduction either by the player or the IA if they are in a relationship.
Also, some trait to not have all the npcs at some point trying incest, we are not all Lannisters either

 

[Lawgun]

They should really add a "Loyal" trait for males/females not all people are adulterers or cheaters, some people will die loyal to their loved ones.
Is actually very simple, any character with the Loyal Trait will be immune to seduction either by the player or the IA if they are in a relationship.
Also, some trait to not have all the npcs at some point trying incest, we are not all Lannisters either

There is no escape from cuckolding.

 

[Karlington]

There is no escape from cuckolding.

Set the dominant sexuality game rule to Asexuality.

 

[starkwolf]

They should really add a "Loyal" trait for males/females not all people are adulterers or cheaters, some people will die loyal to their loved ones.
Is actually very simple, any character with the Loyal Trait will be immune to seduction either by the player or the IA if they are in a relationship.
Also, some trait to not have all the npcs at some point trying incest, we are not all Lannisters either

I mean, not immune but unless you are a master seducer with like 20 diplomacy and/or intrigue (I exaggerate but you get the idea), you shouldn't have a chance. And even with it, it should be improbable.

 

[Djisma]

There is no escape from cuckolding.

there is, I play with mods because of that, but they should add an official patch for it instead of us having to use mods.

I mean, not immune but unless you are a master seducer with like 20 diplomacy and/or intrigue (I exaggerate but you get the idea), you shouldn't have a chance. And even with it, it should be improbable.

nope, immune, as I said "Loyal" trait means that, Loyal no matter what.
I like the work they have done already, but they still need to fix this whole cuckolding in the game.
I play to have fun and that "content" is something I hate in the game, having a trait like that will help since people will be able to romance/marry Loyal characters and it won't hurt those that still want to play with such content.

 

[starkwolf]

there is, I play with mods because of that, but they should add an official patch for it instead of us having to use mods.


nope, immune, as I said "Loyal" trait means that, Loyal no matter what.
I like the work they have done already, but they still need to fix this whole cuckolding in the game.
I play to have fun and that "content" is something I hate in the game, having a trait like that will help since people will be able to romance/marry Loyal characters and it won't hurt those that still want to play with such content.

I feel that "no matter what" creates an issue analogous to another common issue I see: recreating the result in a historical game, not the question.

Historical games tend to try to recreate the situation that existed historically to try and create immersion. The problem is that not only does this restrict strategy to one meta (since things become predictable through hindsight) but it is also contrary to immersion in that the question is not recreated. Paradox does try to balance this, which I appreciate. But to give some examples, in most WW2 games you already know before you begin the game that Germany cannot be negotiated with, and that Poland is likely to be split up between Germany and the USSR. The problem is that in real life, it was not known for sure whether Hitler could be negotiated with (although evidence pointed against it), and most were stunned when Germany split Poland with the USSR. But to a player in an average game, both of these things are practically a given. But it is necessary for gameplay.

The problem with such a mechanic in CK2 or CK3 is that if you know a character to be loyal, it doesn't make sense to attempt advances. The problem is, as human beings in real life, we never have certainties about other human beings. We can know by a certain person's reputation that they will be extremely difficult to deceive, or are extremely unlikely to abandon their loved ones, etc. But we can't know that, and such a mechanic would implement a very immersion breaking experience of perfect knowledge of the extent of that loyalty. Further, no other characteristic is carried out to this extreme: a kind character is never perfectly kind, a deceitful character tells the truth at least some of the time, a cruel character is never perfectly cruel. Why do we then suddenly want perfectly loyal characters?

Irl, a person known to be loyal is unlikely to be advanced because most don't believe it is possible to convince them to betray their loved ones. But a character that has never failed in their past to seduce anyone of their choosing could be expected to become overconfident and expect success. The problem is as a player the possibility of developing and experiencing that level of hubris would be missing, since you already know the game is "fixed."

 

[Djisma]

But we can't know that, and such a mechanic would implement a very immersion breaking experience of perfect knowledge of the extent of that loyalty.

First of all, is not immersion breaking because not all people will cheat on their partners, not all people will ever do incest either, etc
I find it more immersion breaking that no matter how much your wife, soulmate or partners love you they will end up cheating on you at some point in the game, for me "that" is more immersion breaking because it makes soulmates and other traits absolutely worthless, also I never said this trait has to be forced on the players, they can add it as optional for people like me that want and believe that not all the people in the world are ****cheaters.

Irl, a person known to be loyal is unlikely to be advanced because most don't believe it is possible to convince them to betray their loved ones. But a character that has never failed in their past to seduce anyone of their choosing could be expected to become overconfident and expect success. The problem is as a player the possibility of developing and experiencing that level of hubris would be missing, since you already know the game is "fixed."

I'm sure many of us won't mind that when we have to make a damm mod to avoid that *****.
As I said, such an optional trait should be made for those of us that don't see all the women/males as whores, because in this game they all are whores at some point, fucking everything that moves and that is a very funny but dumb system, even after they have toned that seduction down it still happens a lot and a good solution for all of us will be that... having such a trait as optional.
It will make the game more enjoyable for all of us, I don't find this immersion-breaking because you will be allowed to have it off and those that like this new "trait" turn it on.
I don't have any problems at all with the other traits so far in the game so I can't comment on it.
Regards.

 

[starkwolf]

First of all, is not immersion breaking because not all people will cheat on their partners, not all people will ever do incest either, etc
I find it more immersion breaking that no matter how much your wife, soulmate or partners love you they will end up cheating on you at some point in the game, for me "that" is more immersion breaking because it makes soulmates and other traits absolutely worthless, also I never said this trait has to be forced on the players, they can add it as optional for people like me that want and believe that not all the people in the world are ****cheaters.


I'm sure many of us won't mind that when we have to make a damm mod to avoid that *****.
As I said, such an optional trait should be made for those of us that don't see all the women/males as whores, because in this game they all are whores at some point, fucking everything that moves and that is a very funny but dumb system, even after they have toned that seduction down it still happens a lot and a good solution for all of us will be that... having such a trait as optional.
It will make the game more enjoyable for all of us, I don't find this immersion-breaking because you will be allowed to have it off and those that like this new "trait" turn it on.
I don't have any problems at all with the other traits so far in the game so I can't comment on it.
Regards.

Traits are turned off and on in CK3? That's new. Must have missed that announcement. Unless you just mean some characters have it some don't.

In any case if the probability is low enough, you aren't even going to see it happen in your game anyway (almost certainly) in CK2. Seems that if it is happening so often in CK3 that's an unfortunate quirk of that game. Sure I'll see it sometimes, just got done with a CK2 game where it actually made sense my queen would cheat on me. No other spouse did though (for about 3 generations or so, and my king was a widower a few times). Maybe it is a problem with how powerful the seduction route is in CK3, idk. If the mechanics push towards this sort of all or nothing deal frequently, that pushes me more from being on the fence about CK3 eventually to not at all, personally.

If you don't mean disabling any character having the trait at all, then I must contest your point, as you seem to be disregarding what I am saying.

", is not immersion breaking because not all people will cheat on their partners, not all people will ever do incest either, etc"
That's the thing though, some people won't. But do you know who won't? You can know you won't (or at least we like to think that, brain injuries etc do weird things to people), but you already have full control over your own character in game, so it doesn't apply. Do you know that someone else, specifically won't? Because those that will often won't admit to it. Putting players in a position where they know who will and who won't defeats the whole deception part. Those that get caught red handed irl usually shock everyone they know, because most didn't have them pinned for being that type. This removes that shock. If the probability is low under all conditions, you can still simulate a perfectly loyal person by simply having that low probability never proc. Perhaps not on a specific character you would have liked to see it happen on, but if it isn't a player character then I still don't see the problem? As long as it is capped at a probability of between 1-5 percent maximum. And there's a better than not chance that you won't ever see it. But having that tiny chance changes things.

Unless CK3 has some weird deal where like 50 characters are all making passes at the same character. Then I could see the problem just by sheer quantity of attempts. But I would think that with plenty of other characters to choose from a single character shouldn't be facing so many attempts as to overwhelm that low probability within their life span. The relevant part, anyway.

 

[Skrelk]

Any news on future dev diaries?

 

[Weyird]

Interesting to look back at the first dev diaries