Do we really need building limit depending on devolpment?

[makaramus]

@makaramus Arguing that the silent majority agrees with you and is being ignored by a vocal minority requires very significant evidence to support, evidence which is completely lacking from this thread.

well... I can say atleast people who are on forums agree with it atleast which is a minority I agree.
but if we draw the graph at smiler rate what I am saying is we cant change it because it will make too many unhappy players.
A game cant sacrifice %30 of its player base because %70 want someting else. it will harm game

 

[EarlKonrad]

well... I can say atleast people who are on forums agree with it atleast which is a minority I agree.
but if we draw the graph at smiler rate what I am saying is we cant change it because it will make too many unhappy players.
A game cant sacrifice %30 of its player base because %70 want someting else. it will harm game

The majority wanting something doesn't automatically make it so that what they want is what is good. See how many people in this forum say that limiting development or creating a pop system will only make EU 4 better without presenting any good argument on why that is the case. People don't always know what is better for the game, hence why not everyone is a game developer.

 

[makaramus]

The majority wanting something doesn't automatically make it so that what they want is what is good. See how many people in this forum say that limiting development or creating a pop system will only make EU 4 better without presenting any good argument on why that is the case. People don't always know what is better for the game, hence why not everyone is a game developer.

aka... literally what I stated?

 

[frolix42]

Low development areas lack the infrastructure to support a sophisticated bureaucracy. You build many massive cathedrals in the middle of nowhere, they can't afford to maintain it. You build a recruiting station where they are no people, same same. I don't see what is hard to grok about this.

Letting all provinces be able to build all the fixed bonus buildings would be an imbalanced buff to large, rich nations. They don't need this. They shouldn't get this.

SureI can build every building at random land at siberia like that but... will I? I mean even if I build everything but manufactories(which, you only build them at there) I will gain someting like 0.25 ducats at most and someting like 200 man power. yea... its not so great

Someone would if they didn't know they game mechanics. Its poor game design to let inexperienced players fall into this noob trap.

 

[makaramus]

Low development areas lack the infrastructure to support a sophisticated bureaucracy. You build many massive cathedrals in the middle of nowhere, they can't afford to maintain it. You build a recruiting station where they are no people, same same. I don't see what is hard to grok about this.

Letting all provinces be able to build all the fixed bonus buildings would be an imbalanced buff to large, rich nations. They don't need this. They shouldn't get this.



Someone would if they didn't know they game mechanics. Its poor game design to let inexperienced players fall into this noob trap.

new players tend to click highest number they see
if they fall into some trap it would be building wrong building not building somewere they should not (since number will be like 0.002 compared to your capital 0.20)

 

[LSF]

The majority wanting something doesn't automatically make it so that what they want is what is good. See how many people in this forum say that limiting development or creating a pop system will only make EU 4 better without presenting any good argument on why that is the case. People don't always know what is better for the game, hence why not everyone is a game developer.

"...without any good argument on why that is the case"

Why presenting arguments if people can simply play and see for themselves? Just play MEIOU or Common Universalis. Stuff like population, urbanization, literacy, infrastructure, minorities, all those stuff make the game so much better than in vanilla for both mods. The "click a button to dev your land" does not compare IMO.

But again, it is something for EU5. It's too late for big overhauls in base game.

By the way, I agree with your 1st statement. Just disagree with the example you chose to illustrate that.

 

[EarlKonrad]

"...without any good argument on why that is the case"

Why presenting arguments if people can simply play and see for themselves? Just play MEIOU or Common Universalis. Stuff like population, urbanization, literacy, infrastructure, minorities, all those stuff make the game so much better than in vanilla for both mods. The "click a button to dev your land" does not compare IMO.

But again, it is something for EU5. It's too late for big overhauls in base game.

By the way, I agree with your 1st statement. Just disagree with the example you chose to illustrate that.

I never played MEIOU but I did play quite a bit of Imperium Universalis. They are radically different mods, I know.

I will that my example wasn't good. See, one of my issues with the argument that a mod does something good, hence the base game can to it too isn't the argument itself but rather how I never see people explaining how the mod does it well and why porting it over to the base game (or at least having something similar) would be good. I see people stating that MEIOU does pop wonderfully but never the why.

 

[gigau]

Why presenting arguments if people can simply play and see for themselves? Just play MEIOU or Common Universalis. Stuff like population, urbanization, literacy, infrastructure, minorities, all those stuff make the game so much better than in vanilla for both mods. The "click a button to dev your land" does not compare IMO.

To be fair, while i do agree that i feel population is helps model the changes in dynamics, effects of food or epidemics, available manpower,... , i don't think saying "play a mod to see for yourself" is the solution either. The problem is they would see how we make it work in our mod... which wouldn't be how they can model in the base game.

As a proof of concept, one would have to make a mod implementing population and how it can plug into the different elements of the Vanilla game.

 

[LSF]

To be fair, while i do agree that i feel population is helps model the changes in dynamics, effects of food or epidemics, available manpower,... , i don't think saying "play a mod to see for yourself" is the solution either. The problem is they would see how we make it work in our mod... which wouldn't be how they can model in the base game.

As a proof of concept, one would have to make a mod implementing population and how it can plug into the different elements of the Vanilla game.

I think in a similar way. Since there are so many differences between the mods and vanilla one cannot take just one feature and implement in vanilla, because that feature works well in another context.

But anyway, I dont think they should implement either population or pops in base EU4. I dont like changes in core mechanics in a game with so many patches and with the player base already used to them.

But I think about EU5. Taking a look at some mods one can see that many things can be really different than in vanilla and work very well. The different way of dealing with development is one of them. But there are so many things that can be improved for EU5... Less instant effects of clicking buttons, less reliance on ruler stats for generation of currencies (mana), AI that can properly handle warfare, more realism in the distribution of development among the tags ( India should start with at least twice the dev of all Europe and China with even more than that), a system in which a tag with superior organization can beat another one with much more money and troops (like Portugal did many times in India)...

Well, it is not the topic. Im already digressing and rambling!