Comments and Suggestions on 2.5.2 Conclave beta

[Matthias_Wlkp]

Would it be possible to add an option to release an ally from obligation? If you get into war - fine, all alliances fire automatically - but then add an option to tell your ally - "We're fine, go home". AI could also use this option if it's, say 3-4 times more powerful than the target.

 

[Jorlem]

I only moved to CK2 after Conclave was done, so I'm afraid I don't know the thought process involved. I'd agree with you that I don't need my Allies helping out in every war though.

Any chance you might look into reverting it, if at least partially? Even a few checkboxes on the war dec screen (like in EU4) or option on the alert you get when you are declared on, to give the choice to call in allies would be nice. Even if it happens instantly, it would still be better than the current situation.

Heck, "Force acceptance of a call to arms" is still in the list of potential uses for a favor in the tooltip, so this "feature" has to have been added fairly late in the dev cycle. It's somewhat understandable if it wasn't given as much thought as other features. (Really, it feels like a solution looking for a problem, to be honest.)

 

[GalenZ]

Re: Getting popup icon for non-family kids need education foci:

14. It was changed on purpose, others didn't like being bothered to set unrelated kids' focuses. I suppose a separate alert would keep everyone happy, but time etc.

I understand, and thank you for responding to my suggestions!

However, is this something that could be possibly controlled by a user-modifiable flag in the defines file? While I generally prefer playing an unmodded game, this is the sort of interface tweak that I have no trouble going in and changing, as it doesn't affect actual gameplay.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

My reply to the response in Darkrenown's comment on #14 is, the why not make things like this toggle-able? I read many of the posts of these "others" that didn't like this, but what about the other "others" who didn't mind and/or liked this because it added to immersion, etc.?

 

[Sgian Dubh]

What do you mean by "exploitable?" That a player can elect to make a gamey choice? If so, why is that a problem? If the player complains that the gamey choice makes the game no fun, then isn't the simplest solution just to say, "Well, don't do that anymore"?

I've never understood the thinking behind removing player choice for everyone simply because some folks can't resist making gamey choices that ruin the game for themselves. Why "fix" something that only a certain group of players are breaking only for themselves?

Apart from the chaos caused by changing the game for everyone just because some can't control themselves, it seems to me to be colossal waste of precious development time. You'll never be able to program away all the possible ways for a gamey player to ruin the game for themselves. That's like trying to keep rats off a cheese ship.

Not a rant. Just an honest question about something I've always found puzzling.

I absolutely agree with this post. I have been wondering this same question since I have returned to the game.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I absolutely agree with this post. I have been wondering this same question since I have returned to the game.

The essential problem is that there will always be two kinds of players:

Player One: "My liege, my father the King, is a doddering fool. His heir, my brother, is a syphilic idiot. My son, who was always spoiled by his shrewish mother, is a souless monster who would love nothing more than to usurp my title and confine the King to the Tower. While I, humble servant of God that I am, desire only peace and tranquility so that I may prayerfully meditate the quick and bloody deaths of my father, brother and son. Amen."

Player Two: "So it appears the program is coded to produce a when I do b, d when I do e, and y when I do z. Interesting...... I wonder what would happen if I do 2a(b-z)/e(3d+y)?"

You can never design a game to appease Player Two that won't drive Player One insane.

 

[Silversweeeper]

The essential problem is that there will always be two kinds of players:

Player One: "My liege, my father the King, is a doddering fool. His heir, my brother, is a syphilic idiot. My son, who was always spoiled by his shrewish mother, is a souless monster who would love nothing more than to usurp my title and confine the King to the Tower. While I, humble servant of God that I am, desire only peace and tranquility so that I may prayerfully meditate the quick and bloody deaths of my father, brother and son. Amen."

Player Two: "So it appears the program is coded to produce a when I do b, d when I do e, and y when I do z. Interesting...... I wonder what would happen if I do 2a(b-z)/e(3d+y)?"

You can never design a game to appease Player Two that won't drive Player One insane.

Agreed. However, with the CK franchise having a lot more roleplaying potential than the other PDS grand strategy titles (EU, Vic, HoI), it is sad when it loses these elements as it is the thing that makes it stand out.

 

[Kollatius]

What do you mean by "exploitable?" That a player can elect to make a gamey choice? If so, why is that a problem? If the player complains that the gamey choice makes the game no fun, then isn't the simplest solution just to say, "Well, don't do that anymore"?

I've never understood the thinking behind removing player choice for everyone simply because some folks can't resist making gamey choices that ruin the game for themselves. Why "fix" something that only a certain group of players are breaking only for themselves?

I think what he means about the old system being exploitable:
Ai is FAR more willing to accept a player's call to arms, than the player is to accept the AI's.
Naturally, this creates some situations where AI declares wars expecting the player to join, and when the player doesn't, the AI is trapped in a near suicidal war.

As far choice goes... now you have to think about "who do I form alliances with?" BEFORE you form it. That's still a choice, just a different sort of choice.

 

[R'hllor]

The essential problem is that there will always be two kinds of players:

Player One: "My liege, my father the King, is a doddering fool. His heir, my brother, is a syphilic idiot. My son, who was always spoiled by his shrewish mother, is a souless monster who would love nothing more than to usurp my title and confine the King to the Tower. While I, humble servant of God that I am, desire only peace and tranquility so that I may prayerfully meditate the quick and bloody deaths of my father, brother and son. Amen."

Player Two: "So it appears the program is coded to produce a when I do b, d when I do e, and y when I do z. Interesting...... I wonder what would happen if I do 2a(b-z)/e(3d+y)?"

You can never design a game to appease Player Two that won't drive Player One insane.

Exactly. Especially since people more like player one seem to be the majority. But it's a bit problematic that Paradox knows how to make strategy games a lot better than they know how to make roleplaying games, even though its the roleplaying aspect that is a major drawing force in CK2.

 

[Hopit]

Can we also have a distance filter for character finder please?

Why is this not a thing already?

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Why is this not a thing already?

I must assume that it is extremely difficult programming wise, because we've gotten superfluous features like "next song button," since the distance limit was implemented.

 

[Jorlem]

I think what he means about the old system being exploitable:
Ai is FAR more willing to accept a player's call to arms, than the player is to accept the AI's.
Naturally, this creates some situations where AI declares wars expecting the player to join, and when the player doesn't, the AI is trapped in a near suicidal war.

As far choice goes... now you have to think about "who do I form alliances with?" BEFORE you form it. That's still a choice, just a different sort of choice.

Then why not have the AI, when it wants to declare war, send a message to its allies ahead of time saying "I plan to declare war on X within the next month*, are you with me?" Then, if the player says yes, they're auto-called if the AI declares war on X within the desired timeframe, and if the player says no, the AI knows not to depend on them. (Drawing inspiration from the EU4 feature where you can spend favors to ask an ally to prepare for war.)

*If needed, replace month with a better timeframe.

 

[GalenZ]

Then why not have the AI, when it wants to declare war, send a message to its allies ahead of time saying "I plan to declare war on X within the next month*, are you with me?" Then, if the player says yes, they're auto-called if the AI declares war on X within the desired timeframe, and if the player says no, the AI knows not to depend on them. (Drawing inspiration from the EU4 feature where you can spend favors to ask an ally to prepare for war.)

*If needed, replace month with a better timeframe.

I *LIKE* this idea. It fits very well with my distinction between offensive and defensive wars. AND it adds a very nice and reasonable roleplaying aspect to the game - lining up allies *before* declaring war, not after. No sensible king in the world would declare an offensive war and *then* ask allies to join him!

 

[VladPrus]

Then why not have the AI, when it wants to declare war, send a message to its allies ahead of time saying "I plan to declare war on X within the next month*, are you with me?" Then, if the player says yes, they're auto-called if the AI declares war on X within the desired timeframe, and if the player says no, the AI knows not to depend on them. (Drawing inspiration from the EU4 feature where you can spend favors to ask an ally to prepare for war.)

*If needed, replace month with a better timeframe.

That is great! I hope devs will see your idea! With this I think this system would be the greates alliance system.

 

[Talq]

The essential problem is that there will always be two kinds of players:

Player One: "My liege, my father the King, is a doddering fool. His heir, my brother, is a syphilic idiot. My son, who was always spoiled by his shrewish mother, is a souless monster who would love nothing more than to usurp my title and confine the King to the Tower. While I, humble servant of God that I am, desire only peace and tranquility so that I may prayerfully meditate the quick and bloody deaths of my father, brother and son. Amen."

Player Two: "So it appears the program is coded to produce a when I do b, d when I do e, and y when I do z. Interesting...... I wonder what would happen if I do 2a(b-z)/e(3d+y)?"

You can never design a game to appease Player Two that won't drive Player One insane.

Not really - theres also the third type who simply object to new challenges and cloak their objections in 'roleplaying' for respectability. Because funnily enough neither infamy nor shattered retreats affect your ability to prayerfully mediate unless your meditations involve raising troops on a regular basis. (come to think of it, I can't remember the last time anybody gave as a reason for a feature to be changed as they would like to exploit it)

 

[R'hllor]

Not really - theres also the third type who simply object to new challenges and cloak their objections in 'roleplaying' for respectability. Because funnily enough neither infamy nor shattered retreats affect your ability to prayerfully mediate unless your meditations involve raising troops on a regular basis. (come to think of it, I can't remember the last time anybody gave as a reason for a feature to be changed as they would like to exploit it)

Or maybe people want challenges that real rulers faced, in which case roleplaying is a completely valid reason.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I think what he means about the old system being exploitable:
Ai is FAR more willing to accept a player's call to arms, than the player is to accept the AI's.
Naturally, this creates some situations where AI declares wars expecting the player to join, and when the player doesn't, the AI is trapped in a near suicidal war.

As far choice goes... now you have to think about "who do I form alliances with?" BEFORE you form it. That's still a choice, just a different sort of choice.

I've always considered the consequnces of joining an alliance before I join it, and I suspect most other players do too. Being in an alliance always has consequences, but in the past those consequences came in form of choices. Now the choice is removed.

Which takes me back to the question: Whose feelings are we protecting here? The AI may find itself in a sucidal war if you don't join, true. But the AI, not being human, doesn't actually care - I promise. The only actual human involved, the only one with real feelings, is me, the guy who paid for the game. I'm the one who matters. And if it bothers me to see the AI commit suicide, then I'll stop doing that. And it doesn't, I won't. Simple.

I still don't see how I, as the paying customer, am somehow better off by having fewer choices. Or why anyone should devote development time to forcing me play the game one way for fear that I might not be happy if I were allowed to play the game another way.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I think what he means about the old system being exploitable:
Ai is FAR more willing to accept a player's call to arms, than the player is to accept the AI's.
Naturally, this creates some situations where AI declares wars expecting the player to join, and when the player doesn't, the AI is trapped in a near suicidal war.

As far choice goes... now you have to think about "who do I form alliances with?" BEFORE you form it. That's still a choice, just a different sort of choice.

The difference was that the AI would only refuse a call if it was busy and couldn't send troops, or it hated the player. Fact is, the player (regardless of current character disposition) can act howsoever they choose. Basically the player can refuse to roleplay.

The only solution to that is to remove roleplaying - it's solution which overall reduces the quality of the CKII experience.

There are also ways to incentivise the player to follow the treaties they have signed. Refusing a call to arms would break an Alliance and breaking a NAP would break ALL NAPs.

Then the player would have both a mechanical and a roleplay reason to follow the treaties but they wouldn't be forced to.

It should also be possible to dissolve a NAP.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Exactly. Especially since people more like player one seem to be the majority. But it's a bit problematic that Paradox knows how to make strategy games a lot better than they know how to make roleplaying games, even though its the roleplaying aspect that is a major drawing force in CK2.

But CK2 is a strategy game. But the emphasis is (or should be) on the dynastic and political strategy and conquest by arms should be an extension of the first two. At least that is what brought me to the original game and to this one. If they make a CK3 where this is not the primary point (at least in concept) then I would not be interested in it.

Not the stuff of an exciting conquest series for YouTube, perhaps - but I finally found a 'tuber' who plays more in line with how I play and am immensely enjoying the series.

I have been a wargamer for a very long time. I have shelves and hard disks full of war games of all kinds. CK2 fills a different niche, which is what drew me to it in the first place.


Another thought - Are the roleplay-minded players the majority? If so, then shouldn't the game be progressing in that direction?

Last thought - I often think, when I read through these forums, that it would be very interesting to have a Poll of why people bought CK2 (meaning what class/type of game they were desirous of and then what they think they actually bought after they have played it for a while).

 

[Hopit]

I must assume that it is extremely difficult programming wise, because we've gotten superfluous features like "next song button," since the distance limit was implemented.

How dare you trash talk the "next song button", the createst feature this game has ever received