The AI always behaves according to its programming. It is only because you expect it to be capable of prediction and analysis that you find it unpredictable.
[Discussion] Troubling theory about the direction of EU franchise
- Thread starter LiberiusX
- 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.
Because not everybody plays the game in multiplayer (actually I think it is mainly played in singleplayer) and not everybody finds singleplayer as boring as you find it.
Good to see this thread has been re-opened only to be dragged OT by derpy claims about multiplayer's superiority.
I mean that multiplayer should be emphasized, because single player in comparison is a kind of predictable tedium. If you haven't realized that the AI is just a collection of fixed routines and probability calculations, then just try paying attention a little more.
Anyway, scheduling is something else, but i've never had a problem with it. I'm talking about the essential experience of multiplayer vs single player. It's one thing if you value the ability to do something fast over the experience, but competing against other humans instead of code receptacles is just more exiting
But like I said a lot depends on the host, and that he be fair and reliable, etc.
I would point you to one of my previous posts as a response.(I don't blame you for not seeing it)
In addition, it comes off as pretty darn condescending when you state the single player is just too tedious for you because an AI is just so obviously not as smart as you or another human. hwoosh said it best:
For those of us who do have full time jobs and families, every waking moment is spent in 'multiplayer'. I spend at least 8 hours a day analyzing and outbidding my competition so as to acquire some material for my company to turn a profit on a finished product. That is good and fulfilling.
When I get home I might have some free time to remove myself from reality and use my imagination to rebuild history as it may have happened. I don't care that I'm playing against an AI, because I'm not there to beat it. It is there to facilitate my imagination. It is there to throw the occasional curve ball, to make the story of the great Empire of Silesia that much better. I don't know what's going to happen next, but I can't wait to find out.
In MP, I know what's going to happen next. I'm going to fight war after war ad infinitum. Everything I do is going to be a means to an end of fighting another war. That is boring and tedious. Not because I'm better than anyone, but because the very framework lacks imagination.
This. At least when people were complaining about the game earlier their comments were constructive...
I also golf and play basketball (for those sport activities you mention). Is it wrong to also enjoy strategy games as well? I had enjoyed EUIII immensely and had hoped EUIV would have captured the same magic.
I thought you had reasonable arguments until you said this. The AI is extremely predictable especially when you realise that the idea groups they take are hardcoded. I don't even know how you can argue that every human is predictable when we all have differing opinions on how to play the game, differing opinions on unit ratio's for our stacks, different opinions on the best idea groups, differing preferences on desirable colonial land and obviously most of all different ways every person approaches in their diplomacy. edit: Oh and obviously humans are completely superior to AI in warfare, AI are so predictable with how they fight their wars.
Last edited:
Lol, the things people say to justify themselves these days.
MP is very fun, singleplayer can be too, but I only find it when im in a challenge, not a self imposed restriction.
MP is the real challenge, people are better, diplomacy is tough, and you have to balance everything because you never know when your going to get backstabbed
I however, find your mentality silly to be honest.
Here's a fresh perspective, I hope - I've never played MP, and I would love to. I play all kinds of MP games, including other PDX games, and I'm all for the extra level that it brings to play.
But, getting a server together, using the tools that we have here (and yes, I have TS3 and all that), is still a labor. The different TZs for the community required delving into the forums to meet people for games, if like myself most of your other gamer contacts don't have an interest in EUIV MP games for one reason or another. See, it's a Casual game on Easy SP, no Ironman, with some intelligence. On MP it isn't, it's more like an MMO raid, or on the other end like a pen-pal chess game. I'm not opposed to either of these things, but it keeps me away personally.
Make it easier to play MP, and I can see emphasis put there. Otherwise, it rides the line between committed vision and dividing the community.
But, getting a server together, using the tools that we have here (and yes, I have TS3 and all that), is still a labor. The different TZs for the community required delving into the forums to meet people for games, if like myself most of your other gamer contacts don't have an interest in EUIV MP games for one reason or another. See, it's a Casual game on Easy SP, no Ironman, with some intelligence. On MP it isn't, it's more like an MMO raid, or on the other end like a pen-pal chess game. I'm not opposed to either of these things, but it keeps me away personally.
Make it easier to play MP, and I can see emphasis put there. Otherwise, it rides the line between committed vision and dividing the community.
How on Earth do you know what the median playtime was for EU3?
I agree with the other people who have said that we find peace time play in EU4 boring. It may be relevant that my computer is only barely able to run EU4, so I can't speed up play when the game gets quiet.
Even if the logistical hassles of organizing all those people to all commit to playing an extremely long, long game such as EU weren't enormous, and even if I didn't prefer to play other games when I play multiplayer games, I have absolutely no interest in playing a game which is about backstabbing me. Congratulations, you backstabbed me. Now why don't you go play against the AI? You claim you want a challenge. Playing against the AI is 100,000x more challenging than backstabbing me.
True. But a good programmer can make use of a PRNG and add quite a bit of reasonable unpredictability to AI behavior. There is some base AI randomness in EUIV, in that there are chance factors for options selected in events. Since most of these are a) invisible to the player and b) have little or no long-term impact the player sees on real change in behavior. Similarly, random mission selection provides for potential changing behavior.
If the AI is 100% predictable then the problem is lack of a) long-term impact from randomness and b) lack of imagination on the part of the designer. If there are game-changing decisions and well-written missions that cause changing behavior, the AI won't be so predictable.
In EUIV, since combat is so important, if the AI always follows the same strategy, it will be easy to defeat. Writing solid combat AI in a game where combat is simplified is fairly straight forward, but since the options are so limited, the AI is going to be very predictable. Add more options and introduce some randomness and it will act accordingly.
Bottom line, the more varied the options and the more well-written the AI is, the more 'random' behavior can be modeled. It'll never by TRULY random (any more than the next move in a chess game is truly random), but it can be somewhat less predictable.
What a strange thing to say. You like MP but that doesnt mean its the future. Some people dont have time for MP, some people like to play ALONE.
And then you have even crazier people who like to play both single player and multiplayer.
And then you have even crazier people who like to play both single player and multiplayer.
I like multiplayer when it comes to game like Battlefield where I can just drop right in, get my doze and then drop right out again but I've always had problems with strategy games. I gave up on online strategy gaming back in the Tiberium Sun days, because you would play for 30 minutes and then suddenly someone would quit, or you had to wait until you found a suitable opponent etc.
Paradox games are to me pretty much impossible to play on-line. I've tried but it was not my cup of tea.
In any case Europa Universalis is a single player game, most people play single player (fact) and thus the single player experience should be the no.1 priority. The MP experience should be something Paradox would work on AFTER they have done polishing single player. Thats what we paid 49 Euros for it, now give us our moneys worth.
Last edited:
Hitchens:
1. Multiplayer in EU is some of the best I ever played.
2. What the hell is happening? Why this thread is even on? Whats going on? Which mechanics or balance serve only multiplayer and not singleplayer?
1. Multiplayer in EU is some of the best I ever played.
2. What the hell is happening? Why this thread is even on? Whats going on? Which mechanics or balance serve only multiplayer and not singleplayer?
MP games, just like SP games, are not about backstabbing: they are about surviving and possibly winning. And if you backstab a human player, you can't just send a diplomat an "Improve relations" to make him and the other players forget your betrayal.
If you don't want to be backstabbed you have to plan ahead: get strong, loyal allies; make deals and give real concessions to other players to avoid problems in the future; don't step on other players toes, don't interfere with their plans unless you really want a war against them.
I love MP because it requires some real diplomacy and your competitors are more active, more aggressive (or less passive if you wish), generally more skilled than the AI and way less predictable. The AI cannot give you this level of complexity and therefore is, IMO, less challenging.
Cant you guys just acknowledge the fact that there are players that prefer SP and players that prefer MP?
It doesnt matter which one is more difficult or challenging. Neither playmode is superior, since it simply boils down to preference.
CK II is about managing a realm, not about building an empire. EU IV is an empirebuilder (as Johan said) so conquest is the way to play it. These are core design descisions made by the developers. Paradox should just rework the AE restrictions. Less AE means less peacetime means less time to sit idle as a player. Balancing AE would not impact MP games, but would greatly help SP games.
So lets hope for 1.4.
It doesnt matter which one is more difficult or challenging. Neither playmode is superior, since it simply boils down to preference.
CK II is about managing a realm, not about building an empire. EU IV is an empirebuilder (as Johan said) so conquest is the way to play it. These are core design descisions made by the developers. Paradox should just rework the AE restrictions. Less AE means less peacetime means less time to sit idle as a player. Balancing AE would not impact MP games, but would greatly help SP games.
So lets hope for 1.4.
Last edited:
Speaking of MP only 17% of steam players have done the first achievement: a royal marriage. Then it simply goes down there, less than 12% have diplo-annexed a country, so less than 12% have atlest tryed ironman mode seriously. Now how many of them have really played even a single mp game? Now it is reasonable to expect that even fever has played mp game and Balor said eu4 is mp game over sp. Now why it is like that!
Im am absolutely sure Balor has statistics about this. Balor gave us very confident answer why eu4 is a great success, but you cant really argue on equal ground when they have all data. And now if he reads data delectivily we have even less equal position. All news game companies relase today tell us that their game was a stunning success and customers want more of it. This happend on civ5, simcity5 and rome2, I wasnt not satisfied of any of them. What should we really believe in?
Im am absolutely sure Balor has statistics about this. Balor gave us very confident answer why eu4 is a great success, but you cant really argue on equal ground when they have all data. And now if he reads data delectivily we have even less equal position. All news game companies relase today tell us that their game was a stunning success and customers want more of it. This happend on civ5, simcity5 and rome2, I wasnt not satisfied of any of them. What should we really believe in?
I've never said that MP is superior. I was replying to a guy who claimed that SP is more challenging. But I agree with you, saying that EU4 should be "SP FIRST" or "MP FIRST" is... well... dumb.
I don't think he did. I think he's just trying to say that the best way to find flaws in the balance of the game is playing MP, because it's more competitive.
Last edited: