[Discussion] Troubling theory about the direction of EU franchise

[LiberiusX]

I read a couple of remarks and theories on these boards the other day that many of the new unpopular gameplay 'features' are originating from in house multiplayer sessions and not single player sessions.

The questions I have:

1) Is EU4 being taken in the direction of a multiplayer game that can be played in single player?

2) Are the two mutually exclusive?

I worry that if it takes a multiplayer oriented direction there will be more and more clamor for more 'balance' in a game that I never assumed was supposed to be balanced in every possible way.

 

[Nyrael]

The new features have nothing to do with MP nor is it a new direction as some like to believe. PI wanted to go this direction since before EU3 but only now actually succeeded (Infamy and other limitations proved to not be enough).

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Gamebalance for our games, since early eu2 have always been based on impact on mp primarily. Nothing new there.

 

[Anthropoid]

Seems like a game that is balanced for human players to coop or PVP on the same playing field as some AI will tend to be better balanced for SP than a game that has only been balanced for SP.

 

[Penguintopia]

Seems like a game that is balanced for human players to coop or PVP on the same playing field as some AI will tend to be better balanced for SP than a game that has only been balanced for SP.

This is somewhat fixable through modding at this point (I've done a lot to balance for SP). If Paradox expands what can be modded, then how they balance the game isn't particularly a problem for SP or MP. I play WAY more SP than MP, so that's the focus of my modding (including AI attitudes, missions, etc).

 

[RX2000]

Gamebalance for our games, since early eu2 have always been based on impact on mp primarily. Nothing new there.

Thats one reason why Galactic Civilizations II is such a badass game. Its single player & single player only so the focus is all on single player & nothing is lost trying to chase a good multiplayer experience.

I wish more games were like that.

It seems like a lot of great ideas for CK2 & EU4 cant be implemented because it would unbalance something in multiplayer.

 

[zodium]

I read a couple of remarks and theories on these boards the other day that many of the new unpopular gameplay 'features' are originating from in house multiplayer sessions and not single player sessions.

The questions I have:

1) Is EU4 being taken in the direction of a multiplayer game that can be played in single player?

2) Are the two mutually exclusive?

I worry that if it takes a multiplayer oriented direction there will be more and more clamor for more 'balance' in a game that I never assumed was supposed to be balanced in every possible way.

Bit of hindsight bias here, but everything about EU4 seems written with MP in mind. Wiz has commented multiple times that the AI behaves in various ways because that's how players behave, and that's a good goal for AI behavior. AI influence is what separates single player EU4 from multiplayer EU4, so while the answer to your first question is yes, the answer to your second question is "it depends entirely on how good Wiz is at making the AI behave like a player."

 

[grisamentum]

Thats one reason why Galactic Civilizations II is such a badass game. Its single player & single player only so the focus is all on single player & nothing is lost trying to chase a good multiplayer experience.

I wish more games were like that.

It seems like a lot of great ideas for CK2 & EU4 cant be implemented because it would unbalance something in multiplayer.

CK2 is pretty obviously not balanced for multiplayer in any way. The number of house rules you have to come up with to make multiplayer remotely playable... it's pretty clearly not a game intended for multiplayer. It's an light strategy/singleplayer RPG.

 

[lordelenath]

I don't have any problem if EU4 is balanced with multiplayer in mind (and if the goal for AI is to behave more human-like that's laudable!), as long as is doesn't lead to "all nations have to be of similar power". France should be more powerful than Aragon (not only in terms of starting position, but also NIs and so on). So yeah, balance for multiplayer, but please don't go for some kind of "rock, paper, scissor - everybody's gotta have the same chances"-balance (gotta say that as of yet nothing indicates that PI would do that, so everything seems fine to me).

 

[grumphie]

Gamebalance for our games, since early eu2 have always been based on impact on mp primarily. Nothing new there.

one question on this: how far are you willing to go in this? people cooperating in MP is very pwoerfull(obviously), but its very easy to break balance for MP and SP where you'dont work together. so, whats the limit here? general exploits that make one country or strategy much more powerfull than others imbalancing MP or stomping out every imbalance for balance possibly making the game way less fun casual MP and SP where those exploits arent even used?

 

[grisamentum]

Gamebalance for our games, since early eu2 have always been based on impact on mp primarily. Nothing new there.

So the theory is correct, it just hasn't been much of a problem before.

 

[OhioAstro]

It's a serious problem now. In particular, the draconian limits on growth for large empires make sense if you're trying to prevent people from getting steamrollered in multiplayer games. But they make for a dull single player experience.

 

[squid881]

Bit of hindsight bias here, but everything about EU4 seems written with MP in mind. Wiz has commented multiple times that the AI behaves in various ways because that's how players behave, and that's a good goal for AI behavior. AI influence is what separates single player EU4 from multiplayer EU4, so while the answer to your first question is yes, the answer to your second question is "it depends entirely on how good Wiz is at making the AI behave like a player."

Why should the AI behave as a player? If I want to play single-player, perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that I want to be playing in a believable alternate history, not a modern-day competitive exercise where every other ruler is a mixture of Napoleon and Cesare Borgia.

Edit: To be clear, I often play that way myself. I just want to have a game where there are plausible territorial expansion, coalitions, and internal stability issues without having more than one person playing.

 

[zodium]

Why should the AI behave as a player? If I want to play single-player, perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that I want to be playing in a believable alternate history, not a modern-day competitive exercise where every other ruler is a mixture of Napoleon and Cesare Borgia.

You may be looking for this.

 

[Avernite]

Why should the AI behave as a player? If I want to play single-player, perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that I want to be playing in a believable alternate history, not a modern-day competitive exercise where every other ruler is a mixture of Napoleon and Cesare Borgia.

Edit: To be clear, I often play that way myself. I just want to have a game where there are plausible territorial expansion, coalitions, and internal stability issues without having more than one person playing.

Most countries in Europe were competitive, they just couldn't get away with being Napoleon because they'd be crushed. Instead, they constantly schemed for influence (prestige), power, and other things. Now, some of them were also more occupied by hunting, drinking and gambling, so that is hard to show, but overall more balance seems better.

 

[Solo4114]

Most countries in Europe were competitive, they just couldn't get away with being Napoleon because they'd be crushed. Instead, they constantly schemed for influence (prestige), power, and other things. Now, some of them were also more occupied by hunting, drinking and gambling, so that is hard to show, but overall more balance seems better.

I disagree, at least within the context of SP.

Balance for the sake of balance is not fun, particularly when it breaks the historical context and game-simulation aspects.

For example:

- Limits on diplomatic relations.
- Stability-dropping events the odds of which are increased by high stability.
- Events which pop up with no connection to what the player is doing (e.g. "Unhappiness Among the Clergy" when none of the triggers have anything to do with actual policy decisions, but the text description reads "Conflict of opinion and interest over religious and secular matters between our government and our nation's religious authorities has upset the clergy.")

These may work to "balance" multiplayer more effectively (basically as "bad card draws") but they make the single-player game a maddening experience.


Is there any intent to address these issues, or is the basic attitude of the devs ">shrug< Too bad. Mod it if you don't like it"?

 

[Pellaken]

Making the game heavily MP is bad because it gives control of the quality of the game over to...

Other players, who may or may not be nice people
Internet connections of players, which may or may not be of quality
The ability to find others free at the same time, when you may or may not work a fixed schedule
The internet connections and schedules of other players.

IE
Sorry your game will not be fun today because Jim is rude, your internet connection sucks, Bob can't make it, and Rudy keeps going OOS.

 

[squid881]

You may be looking for this.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at, but if you're telling me to read more about history then I would suggest you read about all of the accomplishments of the Margraves of Brandenburg from the 1300s into the 1500s and see whether they made accomplishments comparable to those regularly obtained by people who play this game.

More importantly, if the results of multiplayer are considered optimal, we can, it seems to me, take it to be for one of two reasons. Either the game mechanics for the game as a whole are optimal, or the fact that is being played with multiple players makes it optimal. Which is the case? It seems to me the latter is the case, but how do people consider the game as a whole good enough when the multiplayer in which the game is primarily being tested is not representative of the single-player experience?

 

[zodium]

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at, but if you're telling me to read more about history then I would suggest you read about all of the accomplishments of the Margraves of Brandenburg from the 1300s into the 1500s and see whether they made accomplishments comparable to those regularly obtained by people who play this game.

More importantly, if the results of multiplayer are considered optimal, we can, it seems to me, take it to be for one of two reasons. Either the game mechanics for the game as a whole are optimal, or the fact that is being played with multiple players makes it optimal. Which is the case? It seems to me the latter is the case, but how do people consider the game as a whole good enough when the multiplayer in which the game is primarily being tested is not representative of the single-player experience?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Look, this is a historically based game, but it's not history. If you have the AI behaving differently (mostly worse) from how the player does, most people would be constantly asking "why did it just do that?" If the AI behaved according to how the countries historically behaved, it would have two effects: the game would become ridiculously easy, and only players with a sufficient amount of prior knowledge about the countries involved could construct a meaningful narrative about the gameplay. Conversely, this is why the AI should play like a player: everyone can understand and relate to what it's doing, and players are good models for effective game behavior.

 

[OhioAstro]

Multiplayer online games heavily reward aggressive playstyles and end up much like the card game Hearts: gang up on anyone who gets too big because otherwise they'll win.

Successful single-player games can be designed to reward very different styles of games - peaceful builder, for example; pacifist; and so on. On the other end, you can play a single-player game in paint-the-map mode too; they can be very flexible. You don't need to balance the different approaches because there is no one disadvantaged if style 1 beats style 2.

I like to play face-to-face boardgames - they take less time and the Eurogame approach has really permitted a rich variety of approaches that I find truly fun. In my computer games I emphatically prefer single-player because I'd rather not have to deal with the almost universal tactics employed in online 4X games - early rushes, etc. And I'd rather set my own challenges and goals, rather than having enjoyable tactics squashed because "too much trade income favors naval powers in wars" or the like.

To the extent that EU4 is multi-player focused it becomes a game that I don't want to play. Whenever I hear that the AI "acts like a player" it ends up in practice "acts like a psychotic sociopath".