Fabricate Claim unlocked by technology in 1.17

[mudcrabmerchant]

I wish we could start having these polls more often. Would definitely have liked a community poll on corruption.

Personally, I can't fathom how this could be a good idea. I understand the seed behind it ("wouldn't it make sense if you had to wait before unfettered expansion?"), but when you think about it for a few minutes, you come up with a ton of very good reasons why it's very bad.

Why, exactly, do we need early expansion to be slower? We already have expansion ramp up with later tech due to ADM efficiency, and there is still nothing to do in this game except expand. Development is not a mechanic of fun - you click a button, a number goes up, woohoo! It isn't the same as wars. If you aren't colonizing, you have to go to war, and so you'll either have everyone no-CBing, or beelining for the idea groups that give CBs. Which reduces strategic thinking - we're given a massive new point sink (stab hits from basic war dec), so large that it's a no-brainer to prioritize solving it over almost all other concerns.

 

[grommile]

You do not design the game how YOU want it to be played but instead how the gamers themselves play it.

No. You design the game the way you want to play it, because that's the only way to produce a good game deliberately.

A game the designers don't want to play will never be good except by accident.

Are you aware that you can still declare war without any CB at all?

The AI won't, and the player usually shouldn't.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The idea of a decreasing cooldown seems to me a lot preferable to just locking fabricate claim behind diplotech.
That being said I do prefer the current situation, but if the devs are going to lock it behind tech I prefer a soft lock over a hard lock.

Why is nerfing one of your weakest options possible and squeezing monarch points further considered desirable?

If stacking with corruption this just lengthens the timer, it doesn't add any new decision-making to the game. If the goal is to simultaneously make the game easier and slower, this is a good way to do it, but I struggle to conceive why someone would set that as the goal.

 

[Pugman]

Are you aware that you can still declare war without any CB at all? Even if your playstyle is to warmonger, this change will not "force" you to remain at peace in any way. A lot of people in this topic seem to hold this mistaken belief that they won't be able to fight early wars anymore so it seems that the backlash against this proposal is just born out of a misunderstanding of the game mechanics and not a legitimate worry...

Yes, with 20 AE right off the bat, which means you probably can't even take a single province without a massive coalition.

 

[Daeumler]

What is even going on?
No explanation, just a poll?
What did you expect to happen?

 

[bbqftw]

edit: nvm misread

Are you aware that you can still declare war without any CB at all? Even if your playstyle is to warmonger, this change will not "force" you to remain at peace in any way. A lot of people in this topic seem to hold this mistaken belief that they won't be able to fight early wars anymore so it seems that the backlash against this proposal is just born out of a misunderstanding of the game mechanics and not a legitimate worry...

Do you actually play this game?

 

[ABookshelf]

Yes, with 20 AE right off the bat

Removed the part of your post that was objectively false. Expansion will be harder, yes. But Paradox addressed this by implementing an "easy" mode (available through your options menu) so if the game is too hard for you, there's a solution for you too!

 

[bbqftw]

Removed the part of your post that was objectively false. Expansion will be harder, yes. But Paradox addressed this by implementing an "easy" mode (available through your options menu) so if the game is too hard for you, there's a solution for you too!

I've played Ryukyu (aka the 'you have to no-CB' start), I find it questionable that such a start should be considered the baseline in terms of what's considered normal difficulty.

 

[grommile]

Removed the part of your post that was objectively false. Expansion will be harder, yes. But Paradox addressed this by implementing an "easy" mode (available through your options menu) so if the game is too hard for you, there's a solution for you too!

One of the people in favour of fabricate claims staying as it is did One Faith with the chosen religion being Animist.

 

[ABookshelf]

One of the people in favour of fabricate claims staying as it is did One Faith with the chosen religion being Animist.

And I've fought and won wars with no CB so there's something I can do that apparently gives him fits! Guess that makes me the foremost judge of game difficulty now.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Removed the part of your post that was objectively false. Expansion will be harder, yes. But Paradox addressed this by implementing an "easy" mode (available through your options menu) so if the game is too hard for you, there's a solution for you too!

Expansion will not be harder, it will be slower.

This is always harder on the AI than on the player, unless the timers are relaxed on the AI over the player. And then all the difficulty coming from it would be from making the player wait longer between doing interesting things.

 

[tom025]

I cant vote on twitter, but for me the fabricate claim should be available right at the start (BUT maybe it should be weaker thats true).

Though if you want to go in that direction, reduce the negative bonus of a no-CB war. Like someone said, if as Frankfurt you declare war against an other OPM, you're just dead ...

 

[bbqftw]

And I've fought and won wars with no CB so there's something I can do that apparently gives him fits! Guess that makes me the foremost judge of game difficulty now.

damn, he won a no-CB war, we got a real game expert over here

Expansion will not be harder, it will be slower.

This is always harder on the AI than on the player, unless the timers are relaxed on the AI over the player. And then all the difficulty coming from it would be from making the player wait longer between doing interesting things.

could be more difficult for ROTW starts if ROTW player goal is to conquer parts of Europe. But I think the change in boredom greatly exceeds the change in interesting difficulty with this particular change.

 

[Fulmen]

Tech 7 is probably best especially for MP games. Should slow blobbing a little bit (thus prolonging the game) while also ensuring that it is available fairly early in the game.

 

[ABookshelf]

damn, he won a no-CB war, we got a real game expert over here

I mean I don't think waging/winning no-CB wars is a big impediment to playing the game, hence why I'm not opposed to PI trying this new claim requirement out, but obviously if people who achieved world conquests are cowering in fear at having to eat extra penalties in their early wars I must be a much better player than I thought!

 

[TheDungen]

Overwhelming majorty wants it from the start.

So guess it will stay that way..

How many of this overwhelming majority has ever designed a game? Please Johan you are the guy with the experience here. You know what your long term goals for the franchise is. Make the decision you think is best.

 

[OldmansHQ]

Forum users is one subset...

Forumites are far more likely to play with Ironman than people not on the forum.. Like 65% of all games by forumites are ironman & 25% is Multiplayer..

Could you share with us some more numbers? They're all quite interesting.

 

[petertel123]

Hoping for at least 1% of the people who play the game to vote..

Tech 7 as the earliest option?? That will sure make the first 50 years of the game incredibly boring

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Tech 7 as the earliest option?? That will sure make the first 50 years of the game incredibly boring

*make the first 100 years of the game incredibly boring (if you're in RotW)

That's the biggest problem with this. It is making expansion take much longer in the RotW than in Europe, while in real life, you saw more blobbing in the RotW than in Europe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And I've fought and won wars with no CB so there's something I can do that apparently gives him fits! Guess that makes me the foremost judge of game difficulty now.

Your belief that making a bad CB less accessible would somehow make the game better has been challenged. The notion that it would make the game harder has been challenged. Some of the strongest players in the game point out why that is the case.

Good players don't throw away monarch points. No-CB is something done out of necessity or inordinate opportunity precisely because it has a heavy ADM cost. Doing it routinely, the equation becomes "take as much per war as possible to lower the number of declarations", not due to AE but because six wars will cost you two admin technologies under good conditions, the functional equivalent of making territory cost more than adaptability currently reduces it.

So players won't do that under normal circumstances. What gameplay does this result in, what do the consequences of the change look like?

Doing less in-game without making more meaningful decisions per time. Experienced players want more meaningful decision points, not fewer, because fewer decision points + more waiting = less gameplay.

I mean I don't think waging/winning no-CB wars is a big impediment to playing the game

It's similar to asking for everyone to have hostile core creation cost, with a side helping of bird mana spent too. Somehow, that would supposedly make the game better, but when pressed as to how as usual we're getting nothing.

Make the decision you think is best.

Developers are people too, they need a reason to believe something is "best", or even "better than known alternatives". Many times on mechanics irrelevant to this thread, implementations have failed to meet that standard even from the perspective of the development team (necessarily so, as any implementation that is inconsistent with itself can't have soundly constructed reasoning unless it's bugged/not WAD).

In this case, the developer had some uncertainty regarding a particular element and asked the customer base. Obviously Johan and other developers are going to "make the decision they think is best" (why would anybody intentionally pick an inferior decision?). But what makes people believe something is best, and why argue against him employing one of many methods in determining it in particular?