Determinism in EUIV

[TheDarkMaster]

Personally, the way I'd like to see the game set up is so that the historical outcome is possible, but it is only one of many different possible outcomes.

There are a few other problems with the current NI system, Schwungrad.
-If you want to be the best at something, you have to pick a nation that was the best at that historically. Otherwise you'll always be playing second fiddle to them if you don't eliminate them outright.
-You must follow the historical path of a nation, otherwise you end up with a whole bunch of useless bonuses that puts you a fair bit behind other nations that are playing to their bonuses.
-These bonuses can be modded out of the game, but a dynamic system using them will most likely not be able to be implemented. That means that the old EU3 system can't be modded into the game.
-The bonuses from these NIs are either going to be so minor that they don't effect the game, or so major that they're essentially insurmountable.
-In some cases, the NIs predispose nations towards paths they historically only achieved through major reform and redirecting the nation's traditional path in an entirely different direction. Regardless of whether or not the events that forced the reforms in the first place happened or not.

The place that these issues become greatest is in multiplayer games. Here you're essentially forced to follow your nation's historical path if you want any hope of competing with the other players, so much of the depth of the game is lost. Choosing to play modded multiplayer games that remove the NIs makes it much more difficult to find players, and arguments on what mods to and not to play with make keeping those players even harder. Then consider that in single player, the AI generally can't really compete with a player that puts their mind to how they want to play the game, so the NIs are rather superfluous. Thus, the only place you'd really want to have the differentiation between nations is multiplayer, and I just finished explaining why they're not really good for multiplayer!

 

[WeissRaben]

I will make a wild guess and say that I don't think that many of them did play EU3 much. They seemed to have played mods of the game, Magna Mundi mostly, or some other version that strikes their fancy. Perhaps they were hoping for EU4 to be the Magna Mundi they were promised before it folded? I don't know, just like I don't know why they are so zealous about this.

Nope. I mostly play vanilla. As a matter of fact, I HATED MM - not for the concept, but because the actual implementation was quite botched, creating an unwieldy game.

And it's EXACTLY because I mostly play vanilla that I'm so zealous - yes, I COULD mod things to play like I want - but I want to play vanilla. I like to compare things I do with what mostly everybody else does, and knowing I am working on the same bases as other do.

(And the idea of bona fixed at game start for 300 years later insults me a little, as an historian.)

I'm sure you meant to include the words "to me" in there somewhere. I want to feel like I'm playing as France, not nation 0xf3f203. That's what games should be about - feeling.

And I want to feel like I'm playing as Land England, or Army-focused Netherlands, or Trade Prussia, not like the idiot kid trying to fit the square model into the round hole.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

So long as our definition of very controversial includes, what, 12-20 (is it even that high) people disagreeing with the idea on a message board.

Yeah, that's not representative indeed, but on the other hand number of rabid defenders actually loving NIs seems to be the same. Not many people follow game's development that close, but some paradox players may dislike such return determinism. Vicky 2 players are not used to getting magical bonuses mid-game, just because they play certain country. EU3 players are used to the idea, that you need to meet triggers to enact country specific decisions - you don't get it out of blue. CK2 players, quite numerous nowadys, are used to non-deterministic, open-ended gameplay, where you really 'create your own history'. Also, I don't think that devs would be responding to criticism, if it was totally irrelevant.

 

[Wallain]

All nations have national NIs. Simply go through them and delete the effects.

The quote you replied to is actually a response to this. Deleting the effects is not sufficient for a complete removal or repurposing.

I'm sure you meant to include the words "to me" in there somewhere.

Uh. They're there. Even in your quote. Can you not read?

I want to feel like I'm playing as France, not nation 0xf3f203. That's what games should be about - feeling.

You see I want to play France too, but I just want to be naval-trade France that sits up into the Netherlands, and not determinist France.

 

[Schwungrad]

-If you want to be the best at something, you have to pick a nation that was the best at that historically. Otherwise you'll always be playing second fiddle to them if you don't eliminate them outright.

I don't play to "have the highest Discipline modifier", I play to "beat Austria". Whether I do this by Blitzkrieg or by Zerg Rush, with a small, disciplined army or with huge numbers of cannon fodder, depends on the circumstances. I.e. my manpower, my wealth - and in EU4, also my bonuses (and theirs, of course).

-You must follow the historical path of a nation, otherwise you end up with a whole bunch of useless bonuses that puts you a fair bit behind other nations that are playing to their bonuses.

"Follow the historical path" is a bit too strong a word - but yes, the bonuses mean that for different nations different strategies will be optimal.

-These bonuses can be modded out of the game, but a dynamic system using them will most likely not be able to be implemented. That means that the old EU3 system can't be modded into the game.

The generic idea system is similar to the EU3 NI system.

-The bonuses from these NIs are either going to be so minor that they don't effect the game, or so major that they're essentially insurmountable.

Well, if you don't believe in the possibility of balancing, you could throw every game mechanic out of the window.

The place that these issues become greatest is in multiplayer games. Here you're essentially forced to follow your nation's historical path if you want any hope of competing with the other players, so much of the depth of the game is lost.

Depends on whether they follow their nation's historical path. And whether you let them.

Choosing to play modded multiplayer games that remove the NIs makes it much more difficult to find players, and arguments on what mods to and not to play with make keeping those players even harder.

Perhaps NIs can be turned off like Luck.

Then consider that in single player, the AI generally can't really compete with a player that puts their mind to how they want to play the game, so the NIs are rather superfluous.

Again, you could say that about every game mechanic.

 

[Dafool]

Yeah, that's not representative indeed, but on the other hand number of rabid defenders actually loving NIs seems to be the same. Not many people follow game's development that close, but some paradox players may dislike such return determinism. Vicky 2 players are not used to getting magical bonuses mid-game, just because they play certain country. EU3 players are used to the idea, that you need to meet triggers to enact country specific decisions - you don't get it out of blue. CK2 players, quite numerous nowadys, are used to non-deterministic, open-ended gameplay, where you really 'create your own history'. Also, I don't think that devs would be responding to criticism, if it was totally irrelevant.

I think the entire EU, Vicky, and HoI fan base is very used to the idea of different tags playing differently. All of those games feature a lot of tag exclusive content. CK2 features far less and you've repeated that innumerable times. The problem is that EU, Vicky, and HoI have you guiding a historical nation. CK2 has you guiding fictional people. It's not only a different game, but a different type of game. You may think that CK2's approach is superior and that's the type of game you want, but you already have that game in CK2. There is no reason for PI to change EU4 into CK2: Early-Modern Warfare.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I think the entire EU, Vicky, and HoI fan base is very used to the idea of different tags playing differently. All of those games feature a lot of tag exclusive content.

This content is implemented somewhat realistically, with regards to logic and cause-effect. You have to meet triggers to use it. In case of very, very short spam of Hoi, scripted parts make complete sense. Nothing against modelling countries better to give uniqueness - just do it during starting setup, not mid in the game.

The problem is that EU, Vicky, and HoI have you guiding a historical nation. CK2 has you guiding fictional people. It's not only a different game, but a different type of game.

There's very little difference from historical point of view. These nations are led by fictional people in EU. With monarch points, these random, fictional people are even more important than in EU3.

You may think that CK2's approach is superior and that's the type of game you want, but you already have that game in CK2. There is no reason for PI to change EU4 into CK2: Early-Modern Warfare.

Haha, comparing CK2 to Modern Warfare. If I was CK2 dev I would feel insulted.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I don't play to "have the highest Discipline modifier", I play to "beat Austria". Whether I do this by Blitzkrieg or by Zerg Rush, with a small, disciplined army or with huge numbers of cannon fodder, depends on the circumstances. I.e. my manpower, my wealth - and in EU4, also my bonuses (and theirs, of course).

That may be impossible without becoming a giant blob first, that's my main fear. If you start as a small nation that slowly builds up its power over the course of the first 100 years or so, by that point Austria/Prussia/some other land power will likely already have all of its NIs, and you'd need to be half again to double their size to be able to match them in land combat if your nation doesn't have comparable bonuses.

"Follow the historical path" is a bit too strong a word - but yes, the bonuses mean that for different nations different strategies will be optimal.

Which dramatically cuts down on the depth of the game. You don't have say four or five optimal strategies for a given nation, just one.

The generic idea system is similar to the EU3 NI system.

Again, the historical NIs are most likely going to have an impact on the game, and AI nations will almost certainly play to their strengths in choosing those paths. You'll face the same problem with human players who're optimizing their nation in multiplayer games. They will always be better then you by a fair margin if you don't also get those bonuses.

Well, if you don't believe in the possibility of balancing, you could throw every game mechanic out of the window.

If each nation gets different bonuses, then they have to be equally effective as each other's bonuses overall, and each nation has to be able to compete on even ground in a one on one interaction. This doesn't necessarily need to be the case at the start of the game, just so long as everyone can end up on exactly even ground for it to be balanced. The alternative is a perfectly imbalanced system, where some nations are much better at certain things then others, forming a sort of rock, paper, scissors system. However, the only time you want this type of system is in a team based multiplayer game, with fixed teams that can either easily change their roles, or have fixed roles. Sorta like class based online shooters, a good example of which is Team Fortress 2. Heavy is good against pyro, spy is good against heavy, and pyro is good against spy. There are no fixed teams in EU, nor is there an effective distribution of roles.

Depends on whether they follow their nation's historical path. And whether you let them.

How exactly would you stop them without wiping them out entirely?

Perhaps NIs can be turned off like Luck.

I hope they'll at least give us that.
NIs: Historical, random, off
Traditions: Historical, random, off

Again, you could say that about every game mechanic.

This one specifically plays into the balanced vs unbalanced system optimized for multiplayer that I was talking about before.

 

[Dafool]

This content is implemented somewhat realistically, with regards to logic and cause-effect. You have to meet triggers to use it. In case of very, very short spam of Hoi, scripted parts make complete sense. Nothing against modelling countries better to give uniqueness - just do it during starting setup, not mid in the game.

EU, Vicky, and HoI all have large amounts of content that are both tag specific and implemented during the game, not before. You seem to prefer CK2's method of just having a starting set up and not much else. However, that is your preference. There is nothing superior or right about that, save what affects the performance of the game. Given that EU4 hasn't moved in that direction, I'd say that the devs disagree with your definition of what's "better".

There's very little difference from historical point of view. These nations are led by fictional people in EU. With monarch points, these random, fictional people are even more important than in EU3.

There's a massive difference. Playing CK is possible because its scope is limited almost entirely towards Europe and its primary focus is on controlling fictional characters. These fellows live short lives and change constantly. EU, Vicky, and HoI all deal with guiding a single nation. Nations are large things with real backgrounds, real traditions, and real history. The last for decades or centuries. As you play, you don't generally cycle through dozens of them. This creates a massive difference in how the game works.

Haha, comparing CK2 to Modern Warfare. If I was CK2 dev I would feel insulted.

I see that joke went right over your head. Perhaps lost in translation? My point was that you're posing the situation as if EU4 should try to be more like CK2. It shouldn't. It should try to be EU4, not a spinoff of a different game.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I see that joke went right over your head. Perhaps lost in translation?

Joke - right....

EDIT

As for rest. You're basically saying that we should unconditionally love each and every thing introduced in EU4, and not criticise it even if there are constructive reasons to do so. Disagreed there yet again.

 

[Dafool]

As for rest. You're basically saying that we should unconditionally love each and every thing introduced in EU4, and not criticise it even if there are constructive reasons to do so. Disagreed there yet again.

No. I'm saying that your criticism should be constructive and relevant to EU4. To continually bash the game because it isn't designed like CK2, a completely different game, is going to lead nowhere. The devs have not only decided that EU4 is going to be its own game, but they've also clearly stated that your continual complaints about their design philosophy are distracting, not productive.

 

[Eh up me duck]

This content is implemented somewhat realistically, with regards to logic and cause-effect. You have to meet triggers to use it. In case of very, very short spam of Hoi, scripted parts make complete sense. Nothing against modelling countries better to give uniqueness - just do it during starting setup, not mid in the game.

You realise that America has a huge immigratation boost in Vicky 2 simply because it's tag=USA? Even if it's fascistic and anti-immigration, the bonus will still be there

And Prussia gets a bonus to production because it's tag=PRU?

And Japan gets to modernise quickly and laughably easy, simply by a decision, because it's tag=JAP?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

No. I'm saying that your criticism should be constructive and relevant to EU4. To continually bash the game because it isn't designed like CK2, a completely different game, is going to lead nowhere. The devs have not only decided that EU4 is going to be its own game, but they've also clearly stated that your continual complaints about their design philosophy are distracting, not productive.

No, we accept the fact that NIs are in - devs made their decision. They're not arguing that it's realistic mechanic, but it's in because fans wanted it. Alright.

What we would like is:

- best case - they rework NI system to include triggers. Flavor and uniqueness is in, and illogical situations, like protestant Spain with 'devout Catholicism', are avoided. Unlikely for devs to do that, but it's constructive proposition of improvement over current simplistic system of just giving a NI.

- worst case - they make NIs toggleable or at least fully moddable


Please explain what's wrong with these proposals/expectations, and why we are not allowed to suggest them. Just without fanboism please.






@JoeIsGreat - O'Really?

 

[Dafool]

Please explain what's wrong with these proposals/expectations, and why we are not allowed to suggest them. Just without fanboism please.

First off, don't call me a "fanboi". Not only does it make you look childish, but it also ignores the fact that I've openly criticized certain aspects of the NI system. However, unlike you, I'm not phrasing my arguments like this: "I don't like this. It should work the way I want. If it doesn't work my way, then it's just plain bad." When things are closer to done and we can truly look at the pros and cons of the NI system, then maybe it'll be time to decide whether to add in new options or not. Given that none of us have even touched EU4 yet, it makes no sense for you to make an all out, black and white judgement on the quality of the game based on your personal opinion.

 

[Evie HJ]

You should get something like your worst case at least. Well, in the sense that you'll be able to mod their name and effect. I wouldn't expect to be able to change how the basic system works, though (eg, each country will have seven ideas that they get in a row. You can mod to your heart's content what those ideas are, but you cannot change the fundamentals of it).

The best case, as you say, is unlikely to happen.

 

[wolfing]

Most companies suffer from the pendulum effect on their games, Paradox is no exception. I don't like determinism either, so I guess I'll have to wait some 4 years or so when EU5 comes and things go back to the way I like the game. I just have to accept that for the last 5 years the game was the way I liked (to the point of considering EU3 the best game ever made), but for others it wasn't. Now it's their turn to enjoy the game deterministic. I just need to be patient, 4 years... like the World Cup wait I guess.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

First off, don't call me a "fanboi".

Ok, sorry - that was unnecessary.

However, unlike you, I'm not phrasing my arguments like this: "I don't like this. It should work the way I want. If it doesn't work my way, then it's just plain bad."

Jesus Christ - this whole thread consists of empirical examples where already revealed NIs would make no sense. Like protestant Spain with +1 papal influence idea, or absolutist Swedish republic. It's not 'It's bad. Me don't like' - it's argumentation filled with examples and suggestions of improvements, like inclusion of triggers. There are walls of text. WTF?

When things are closer to done and we can truly look at the pros and cons of the NI system, then maybe it'll be time to decide whether to add in new options or not. Given that none of us have even touched EU4 yet, it makes no sense for you to make an all out, black and white judgement on the quality of the game based on your personal opinion.

NI system was revealed. Specific ideas were revealed. Flaws within that system were revealed. And yet you're forbidding us to criticise Holy National Ideas. Perhaps I shouldn't have apologised you then.

 

[Dafool]

Jesus Christ - this whole thread consists of empirical examples where already revealed NIs would make no sense. Like protestant Spain with +1 papal influence idea, or absolutist Swedish republic. It's not 'It's bad. Me don't like' - it's argumentation filled with examples and suggestions of improvements, like inclusion of triggers. There are walls of text. WTF?

So an entire system needs to be redesigned because a small amount of the text might bug a small amount of players? As I said, this is a very small and highly irrelevant complaint. We've had these kinds of things in almost every PI game, and yet it was never so terribly awful as to ruin the game. If you're unhappy with this, then there is always plenty of modding potential to fix it. PI is not obligated to cater to your personal preferences, especially given that they've dismissed your complaints personally.

NI system was revealed. Specific ideas were revealed. Flaws within that system were revealed. And yet you're forbidding us to criticise Holy National Ideas. Perhaps I shouldn't have apologised you then.

We've seen some of the nation specific NI's. We've seen little of generic NI's. We've seen little of the generic idea groups. We've heard next to nothing about game balance with these ideas. We're far from having all the information yet. And still you think you have all the info and are now entitled to call the game "flawed". I'm telling you that your specific complaint, that NI's might be too "deterministic" (a term I would not use here), is not only a very minor one, but one that will likely garner any reaction from PI because it doesn't affect the game as a whole, especially at such an early stage.

 

[Evie HJ]

Flaws within that system were revealed.

What you consider flaws.

I agree with you that Spain getting devout catholicism even if it goes protestant may be somewhat immersion-breaking for me (though for example my immersion wouldn't be affected by a Sweden that doesn't control Finland getting haaka...that one). But that doesn't change the fact that what's immbersion-breaking is often goign to be a subjective matter; that for some it may be spain going protestant that's immersion-breaking in the first place, and may prefer a game that push Spain in more historical directions.

So you feel it's a flaw. That doesn't mean it objectively is a flaw.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

So you feel it's a flaw. That doesn't mean it objectively is a flaw.

That could be turned around, you know. You can't objectively say that it's flawless.

And this is a discussion forum where paradox fans give feedback on an upcoming game advertised by the devs. It's not forum of 'yesmen' or unconditional flatterers.

So an entire system needs to be redesigned because a small amount of the text might bug a small amount of players?

Answer.

As I said, this is a very small and highly irrelevant complaint.

That's just like, your opinion... man.