Coalitions make game boring...

[SigurdStormhand]

The thing is, it's not an organic means to slow expansion - organically slowing expansion means expansion creates internal instability that makes it impractical.

Coalitions are the gameplay equivalent of filling the player's pack with rocks and asking them to go for a run. It might slow you down, but whether that actually slows you down depends on how fit you are/how good at the game.

 

[VoxNil]

You can use threat like that, but it's a choice and can lead to some rather quiet times. Just like the Weak Claims notification, it's a suggestion, not a mandate. Some WoL focuses will give you more things to do, but there's still going to be down time where you're just watching the days tick by.

Emperor is pretty calm. Imperial administration makes it more so. Zoroastrian makes it absurd. My Saoshyant play through was a giant incestuous non-aggression pact love fest.
Non-vaslised Zunist was much more interesting.

 

[_Perun_]

there's still going to be down time where you're just watching the days tick by.

Actually, I remember my pre defensive pacts games as even more static. Let's say you have ten neighbours. You can declare wars to all of them at once, easily win it in less than two years and then you need to wait 8 years for the truce to wear off.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Yes, and there'll be a switch after the patch to turn it off - but it will disable achievements.

The problem is that Coalitions retard expansion, but you actually want expansion - and then you want collapse. Unfortunately Doomdark is on record sating he doesn't like collapse.

So, instead of internal instability to give the game challenge and to organically discourage expansion we have overly frequent factions that always fail and Coalitions to try to drag at your heels.

Precisely this. It would have been much better, logical and organic if Doomdark had increased internal realm instability, mainly by turning factions into a more dangerous business, and then made it a customizable feature, along with the next rule-set options in the next expansion.

It's quite ridiculous and boring for me the fact I can actually play CK2, from beginning to end, never ever losing emperor status. Factions are still toothless; they are nothing but a nuisance to be dealt with from time to time.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

Precisely this. It would have been much better, logical and organic if Doomdark had increased internal realm instability, mainly by turning factions into a more dangerous business, and then made it a customizable feature, along with the next rule-set options in the next expansion.

It's quite ridiculous and boring for me the fact I can actually play CK2, from beginning to end, never ever losing emperor status. Factions are still toothless; they are nothing but a nuisance to be dealt with from time to time.

It seems to me that you (and the person you're replying to) have missed the reason why Doomdark said collapse is a bad idea. It's not because he's imposing his personal preferences on the game in spite of alternative solutions being better, nor was it an arbitrary, poorly-thought-out choice.

Losing territory for reasons essentially outside your control is frustrating, not fun. And let's be clear, this is what you're asking for: If it's possible in all situations to hang on to your power, competent players will always be able to do so. Internal instability on its own will never be "difficult" enough to satisfy the people who want it to be legitimately threatening unless it's so difficult as to effectively be beyond the ability of the player to control. This is generally not looked upon as good gameplay.

About the most reasonably threatening to a competent player that internal instability could get without becoming frustrating would be when it makes you look weak to external threats.

 

[Hector of Troy]

On a recent interview, Doomdark made it very clear the reason CK2 does not have any meaningful collapsing empire mechanics is because it would possibly frustrate players who can't handle losing. He simply didn't want to risk making factions and internal affairs more of a threat, at the risk of frustrating players - which in my opinion is a grave mistake.

As for good gameplay, the most fun and addictive games are in my opinion those that you do your very best, but still know there is a slight chance things can go very wrong. If however your idea of fun is mastering a game to the point nothing will ever deviate from its natural course unless you do something stupid on purpose, then I assume we have different points of view.

What you have just described is what makes games entirely predictable, and thus absolutely boring. CK2 is only fun up to the moment you form a dominant empire. From that point on, there is no threat anymore capable of causing any reasonably experienced player major setbacks.

Anyway, that's why on my previous post I suggested a harder form of empire management should perhaps be made optional, so that map painters who enjoy peace and ease would still keep their gaming style intact.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

On a recent interview, Doomdark made it very clear the reason CK2 does not have any meaningful collapsing empire mechanics is because it would possibly frustrate players who can't handle losing. He simply didn't want to risk making factions and internal affairs more of a threat, at the risk of frustrating players - which in my opinion is a grave mistake.

As for good gameplay, the most fun and addictive games are in my opinion those that you do your very best, but still know there is a slight chance things can go very wrong. If however your idea of fun is mastering a game to the point nothing will ever deviate from its natural course unless you do something stupid on purpose, then I assume we have different points of view.

What you have just described is what makes games entirely predictable, and thus absolutely boring. CK2 is only fun up to the moment you form a dominant empire. From that point on, there is no threat anymore capable of causing any reasonably experienced player major setbacks.

Anyway, that's why on my previous post I suggested a harder form of empire management should perhaps be made optional, so that map painters who enjoy peace and ease would still keep their gaming style intact.

So, just to be clear: you feel it's a "grave mistake" to not make your game frustrating (not challenging, frustrating. Frustration is not an emotion you want a game to evoke) to the vast majority of potential consumers. Got it. Are coalitions inherently a better solution? Am I 100% happy with them? Would I, myself, be averse to more challenging internal struggles? No. But that's not what I've taken issue with.

Your opinions about what kinds of games you enjoy are perfectly valid, but they are also subjective ones. Paradox is not making this game specifically for you, and calling a decision made for perfectly rational reasons a poor one is ludicrous. Furthermore, CK2 is a strategy game - there is absolutely an expectation that things that occur should, as long as you play competently, all be able to be managed. While I'm sure your response here would be "losing territory is just a setback to work through," that's absolutely not what the majority of people get out of that. People tend to feel like losing territory is not simply a minor setback or delay in your goals, it's actually losing progress. To deny that the opinions of these people are just as legitimate as your own is to engage in gaming elitism, which has always struck me as among the dumbest forms of elitism.

Sure, if they're already putting in game options, they might as well include something for more difficult vassal management (however that's implemented). But again, to call a decision to make a game that many people would be able to enjoy instead of just the small subset with your specific tastes on what makes good gameplay a "grave mistake" is insane.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

So, just to be clear: you feel it's a "grave mistake" to not make your game frustrating (not challenging, frustrating. Frustration is not an emotion you want a game to evoke) to the vast majority of potential consumers. Got it. Are coalitions inherently a better solution? Am I 100% happy with them? Would I, myself, be averse to more challenging internal struggles? No. But that's not what I've taken issue with.

Your opinions about what kinds of games you enjoy are perfectly valid, but they are also subjective ones. Paradox is not making this game specifically for you, and calling a decision made for perfectly rational reasons a poor one is ludicrous. Furthermore, CK2 is a strategy game - there is absolutely an expectation that things that occur should, as long as you play competently, all be able to be managed. While I'm sure your response here would be "losing territory is just a setback to work through," that's absolutely not what the majority of people get out of that. People tend to feel like losing territory is not simply a minor setback or delay in your goals, it's actually losing progress. To deny that the opinions of these people are just as legitimate as your own is to engage in gaming elitism, which has always struck me as among the dumbest forms of elitism.

Sure, if they're already putting in game options, they might as well include something for more difficult vassal management (however that's implemented). But again, to call a decision to make a game that many people would be able to enjoy instead of just the small subset with your specific tastes on what makes good gameplay a "grave mistake" is insane.

Question - have you played CKII pre-Rajas of India? Or even pre-The Old Gods?

We're not suggesting a nebulous, unknown form of internal instability, we're pointing out that features have been added that increase realm stability, and we're saying that going back to how it used to be would increase instability in a way which was still manageable but potentially threatening. A way that would require the player to take time to consolidate after each war to avoid unrest growing to such extent that it might topple them.

You're talking like we're suggesting adding an RNG "rock fall, everybody dies" option, but we're not and in any case the game IS adding those options with plagues. Doomdark said in the aforementioned interview that they have positively worked against the possibility of the player's realm collapsing - the game has been re-balanced to make collapse less likely, when it was never all that likely to begin with, unless you took your eye off the ball.

 

[Hector of Troy]

Sure, if they're already putting in game options, they might as well include something for more difficult vassal management (however that's implemented). But again, to call a decision to make a game that many people would be able to enjoy instead of just the small subset with your specific tastes on what makes good gameplay a "grave mistake" is insane.

Well, I consider it a grave mistake making mid/late game too easy and monotonous, because it takes the fun away.

As for your assumption the vast majority of players enjoy otherwise, I seriously doubt it. Do you have any data to back up your theory, or is it elitism on your part to assert so?

If you take a look at the Comprehensive Community Issue List (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...prehensive-community-issue-list.917246/unread), you will see that undermined factions and the lack of collapsing empire mechanics are cited as Ck2 deficiencies.

Furthermore, there are lots of people playing HIP, CK2+ and AGOT who will advocate factions are far more menacing and better portrayed in those mods.

Finally, it's not unusual to read weekly or even daily thread complaints on how dull and boring CK2 can become after your form a powerful empire and the game feels like it has been "won".

These seem to me proof enough it's insane on your part to so categorically say the vast majority of CK2 players prefer it one way or the other.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I think both of you need to wind back the rhetoric.

Play the ball, no the man, as they say.

Beyond that - I actually started a thread in the Suggestions forum asking the Devs to add a switch to turn Temporary Revolt Titles on or off, so that everyone can be happy.

 

[Castorem]

Yes, absolutely. Just like in EU4 peace is a nuisance. The game is warfare, you have and can do nothing during peacetime and coalitions are basically forcing you to either fight the whole world or sit on your thumbs while the days slowly tick away. Not the most engaging form of gameplay, if you ask me.