Speaking of priorities, can we get a little sneak reveal or at least some hint on what area of the game the team is currently working on now that El Dorado is out?
DDRJake as a Dev?
- Thread starter JQuacker
- 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.
Speaking of priorities, can we get a little sneak reveal or at least some hint on what area of the game the team is currently working on now that El Dorado is out?
If the AI can't do it, the fact that it would be horrible for the AI to do it is irrelevant. That's why I didn't bother with the rest.
And even if the mechanic is broken, if it is fun for the player, and optional (as looting was, if you don't like it, don't do it...) then so what? The only time "balance" really matters is in competetive games. Such as...you know...multiplayer ones...
Balance absolutely matters in single player. This is very much a part of our design philosophy, and would be even if we did not have MP at all. You're free to disagree but that's not going to change.
I can think of a number of mechanics that I feel are frustrating because the AI uses them and yet the game is probably for the better that they can use them. Therefore, I do not feel that this is proper justification.
With that said, back to being impartial in this discussion.
Why? Surely in the end all that matters is that the game provides enjoyment. If an imbalanced mechanic is more fun for the player than a balanced one, then inbalance is a good thing.
Hell, EUIV is by nature imbalanced - simply by the discrepancies in nation capabilities - and thats exactly why its os good and has the longevity it has.
Balance is integral to fun in a strategy game. If there is no balance, you will quickly discover a single winning tactic for everything and the strategy goes out the window.
I could take quotes like this a lot more seriously if it wasn't for the fact that, in the specfic case here, the "balancing" has gone from giving us multiple options, to a single winning tactic with no variation - stack wipe and carpet siege...
The "imbalanced" state had more variety and was more enjoyable than the "balanced" one is.
I experience more frustration from a single AI army derp (even if it's in my favour) than from any number of inconvenient Espionage actions, coalitions, or Defender of the Faith purchases (and those are the only mechanics whose existing use by the AI really gets into "frustration" territory).
This change may not have made the game more fun for you, but EU4 is not made only for you. We judged that this change would result in a better/more fun game overall, and there is not a single change to anything that is going to please everyone (nor should you think that because a few people on a forum disapprove that the majority of players feel the same).
You're entirely free to disagree with our judgement, but ultimately it's ours to make all the same.
Oh certainly, I understand that. And, to be fair, I do agree that in general, most of what's been done to EUIV since release has made the game better. So overall, I think you do do a great job, and thank you for doing so.
I just can't see how this particular change improved the game for anyone. If you don't want to micromanage or take advanatge of "overpowered" features, you can, you know, just not use them...
I've never agreed with that argument at all. Let's say I add a button to the war screen that will instantly wipe out all enemy armies. That's fine right, because if you don't want to zap the enemies out of existance you can just not use it?
Except that if you don't use it, you are playing suboptimally, and strategy games are about optimizing and creating winning strategies. When you can never create a winning strategy that is better than a magic button the game provides, it takes away the very purpose of the game. Obviously this is an extreme example but it's a very real and important concept in game design, such as when shooters have one clearly imbalanced weapon that is better than the others. The fact that it may not bother you personally doesn't mean anything in the broader perspective, and like I said, we're not making a game just for you.
People don't believe in that kind of logic, though. Just look at the amount of people crying for random changes to be made to the game, forcing a change on other players, just because they don't want something to be an option (I recall a thread a few weeks back about someone complaining that Greece could form Byzantium where the OP made the argument that because he doesn't want Greece to form Byzantium, he thinks nobody should be able to form Byzantium as Greece. That's just an example, too; I see these kinds of threads more often than I'd like to admit.).
That's an argument against UNIs, if I've ever seen one.
(I do understand I am in the minority regarding them, though.)
I know some games give you the option to pillage/raze cities or occupy them peacefully is that a concept that could appear in the game or would it be another case of the limitations on AI and therefore balance that would make it unworkable?
http://steamcharts.com/app/236850
They go up after a patch/DLC and then the number goes down. Overall there is an increase of players, yes. But the peak times exist only because people like me who are done with the game tune it to check the game and see if the major annoyances have been removed, just to find out they haven't. So they leave again. I am sure the given dates of the "high" times of that graph match exactly the release dates of DLC/Patch or free weekends (like recently).
I didn't say that. I just said that rather than it being discontent with rational people and conspiracy theorists it would just be conspiracy theorists on the most part. The problem is that the discontent is sort of united and it's easy for a group of people to hate the same thing even if it's for different reasons.
You don't need to go in depth. Just a basic summing up for the reasons of particularly significant changes as you've done here with looting and the direction you want to take the game in, this way you can get more direct feedback on what your goals are. Still though, you might want to consider it being your job or someone's job because I think it would do much for your PR, especially if you do start getting competition. I don't play it that much but look at how Riot explain their changes in League of Legends.
This would be an improvement sure. The thing I want to know is 'why' you don't consider looting important and what you do consider important in its place. I think a lot of the discontent within the community is those very priorities. I don't recall anyone making a thread on looting being too strong. I mean, I don't use looting that often myself, but it is an alternate layer of strategy, a different way to win the war.
Thank you!
To be fair though any historical argument in this game is bunk for as long as Europe can transfer its entire army to the Americas without a single complaint amongst other things. But alright. Let's get under way.
Firstly, Ming is a special exception being a huge country but weighed down by inward perfection. It's not exactly a fair example because Ming despite these penalties is still the strongest power in the region, especially in human hands. Also the fact it punished large countries more than small ones was perceived by many to be the entire point of the mechanic and gave smaller powers a way of overcoming a giant if the giant was not up to the task. The giant should not get it's hand held but all too often it does. Mechanics like coalitions help larger nations much more than smaller/middle nations but that is another mess entirely.
The fact it was poorly explained or understood applies to a lot of mechanics in this game. The interface constantly lies to the player about diplomatic power costs which can only be found out through trial and error. Tool tips on a regular basis give outdated or even in some cases information that has never been correct. Another example is the amount of threads talking about 'being unable to manually' explore. A tool tip upon trying to explore TI with a single boat and an explorer would tell players immediately what was wrong.
It being difficult to defend against is a fair point against it which is why the 'loot over time' idea from CK2 would work a lot better.
The fact the AI can't use it isn't a fair point. There's quite a few things the AI can't use properly yet it gets quite a few bonuses in compensation (not counting lucky here of course). Also the game is meant for the human to have fun not for the AI. I mean sure I suppose you can argue that 'the AI should be challenging in order to be fun' but when it already relies on quite a few notably crutches to put itself on level with a player it looks sort of goofy. Especially when the exact nature of how it cheats isn't exactly known, despite a certain thread and when someone called you out on the AI cheating regarding natives attack colonies you just said 'incorrect' rather than saying the chance was significantly reduced. I understand the need for AI Cheating and in fact endorse the trope 'the AI is cheating' but the AI in this game does fall more under the far more common trope of 'The AI is a Cheating Bastard'.
Micro heavy? Yeah, I'll grant that one too. Still it's a matter of trade offs here. You can't remove too much of the micro considering how much of it there is else you aren't going to have any strategy left at all.
Thats somewhat of a slippery slope argument there Wiz. There's a massive difference between a "kill all button" and leaving in (not adding...) a feature that is imbalanced under certain circumstances while adding to variety of gameplay and leaving its use up to the player.
It's not a slippery slope at all, it's a demonstration of the fact that the 'balance doesn't matter in single player because you can always choose not to use unbalanced features' argument is false.
Please prioritize looting more it was very important mechanics and its quite a nerf to playing small countries. Looting was significant income compared to their tiny budgets and was helping the player to gain the edge and grow.
Its generally becoming harder to play small countries which kills game variety. Its harder to control vassals, there were some vasal feeding nerfs, now it will be even harder to earn money..
Its generally becoming harder to play small countries which kills game variety. Its harder to control vassals, there were some vasal feeding nerfs, now it will be even harder to earn money..