Healing the Great Schism

[zodium]

I'm probably not being clear enough. My statement is that while there are people who are vocal about liking and disliking the changes, for whatever reason, there are also those who feel that PI knows what they are doing and that trying to have PI bow to whatever decision the "community" reaches would be a bad plan.

That is what mods are for.

I don't disagree with this, and the aim of this thread is certainly not to force PI () to implement one change or another. I have a relatively good hunch that PI developers are not that easily influenced, anyway. This is to help both the players and PI consider and understand all the angles to a balancing concern in a complex system, which I also have a relatively good hunch that they will find helpful, if we don't spend all our time discussing which patch has the bigger penis or yelling at PI/each other.

 

[Seelmeister]

There are clearly some strongly held opinions on patch 1.2, and a few of you would do well to bear the forum rules in mind. Rule three says;

You will at all times respect and refrain from harassing and/or personally attacking other users or Paradox staff. You will respect the rights of other users to have their own opinions.

There are a number of posts, and not just in this thread, which are toeing this line.

The opinions expressed on balance issues in a game are subjective; there are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. If you want to disagree with someone, you must do it respectfully and without resorting to personal attacks.

If anyone feels that someone has crossed the line, the correct thing to do is notify a moderator by PM.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

if we don't spend all our time discussing which patch has the bigger penis or yelling at PI/each other.

Dream on.

More seriously, is the achievement thing really such a draw that it provokes people to criticise a patch rather than just mod it back to the way they like it?

 

[jonman122]

I'm probably not being clear enough. My statement is that while there are people who are vocal about liking and disliking the changes, for whatever reason, there are also those who feel that PI knows what they are doing and that trying to have PI bow to whatever decision the "community" reaches would be a bad plan.

That is what mods are for.

I don't think anyone is trying to make PI bow to demands, and I'm sure PI does have the communities interests in mind (after all its players who end up providing the financial support for future projects through buying games) so the insight granted by having the community discuss it's interests in a positive way is constructive for everyone.

I do not agree that mods are the solution to anything. The reason people are upset is mainly because Ironman mode is currently not balanced appropriately (based on a few AI problems and changes) and the reason the changes were implemented as they were was, seemingly, to make Ironman mode and the higher achievements (world conquere, Three mountains etc.) more challenging. The thing is they're now seemingly impossible, even according to some people who have already received the achievements in question.

 

[Daema]

There is no "schism" at all. Just a bunch of nerds pro-1.2 who wants to look smarter than others but obviously lack common sense.

Not the words I would have chosen, but this is pretty accurate. Those who like the end result of 1.2 are terrified that the game won't be tailored to favour their playstyle, so they're going around insulting and trying to discredit the arguments of those who don't like 1.2. There are also the regular fanboys mixed into this group for whom any criticism of Paradox is taboo and taken as a personal insult.

Those who don't like 1.2 only want more options added.

Also, while hot tempers are definitely to blame for the flame war, Paradox themselves aren't exactly blameless. They don't seem to know what they want to do with this game. They've made lots of little changes that make sense in a vacuum, but with no regard for how they all add up. The inconsistency in how historical the game is supposed to be, what realistic goals for the game are, and how to keep the game challenging to the end without handicapping the player have all caused this backlash and the backlash against the backlash.

I think the only thing that's going to 'heal the Great Schism' is some clear and honest communication from Paradox about whether they actually intended to alter the game so drastically and what their plans going forward are. At the moment people are shouting their opinions so loudly in the hopes Paradox will do what they want. If we have an answer about that, then the flames will die very quickly.

 

[lucaluca]

Too long didn't read

 

[zodium]

Dream on.

More seriously, is the achievement thing really such a draw that it provokes people to criticise a patch rather than just mod it back to the way they like it?

I think the reality of this is complicated, really. Ironman mixes up several desirable modes of play that are hard to disentangle preferences for. Personally, I only care about the permanent decisions and find the other restrictions confining, since sometimes I want to play with one configuration and sometimes with another, but almost always with PD. Others care more about the achievements and standardization, and so forth.

I'm not sure I have anything more to give than that assessment, but I think the reason many people object to being told to use mods is that 1) it's most often done in a derisive or smug tone, even when the poster seems to be actively trying not to sound as such; 2) it's generally associated with making the game "easier" rather than "modifying" the game by both suggesters and those receiving suggestions, and framed as such; 3) it prevents ironman and permanent decisions (and this is a big deal regardless of which aspects of ironman you like).

 

[zxc]

I am both amused and delighted in reading such a serious and earnest wall of text. I wrote a separate post which detailed this short plan to 'fix' the issue, which included this:

1. Split iron man mode into an iron man option and achievements mode.
2. The iron man option would work with any modification to the game - all it does is restrict the player from save scumming and lock the initial game settings.
3. Achievements mode would force iron man, as well as the vanilla game. All old iron man games are counted as achievements mode games.
4. Improve mod support, which includes making more aspects of the game modifiable, and making mods more accessible to the average player. Leave the rest to the community.
5. Continue developing vanilla EU4 along current lines of smart and active single-player AI and multiplayer balance.

It boils down to separating iron man from the version of the game (which some people are calling 'copperman') and mods.

The warscore-cost proposal in the OP is interesting but I think somewhat tangential, given that this schism is solvable with just the iron man change and mods. If you want to change how peace terms and warscore work, I think you must look to:

1. History. What did victorious nations get out of their peace treaties, and what was the extent of their victory (warscore)? Perhaps some people with knowledge of the wars in this period might contribute here.
2. Gameplay, or more specifically, serious multiplayer gameplay. The interactions between skilled players in multiplayer should be a model for what we wish the AI to achieve. It was often the case in EU3 multiplayer that you could enforce any possible demand versus another player, but had to expect that other players would treat them the same way. Therefore, if you annex a huge chunk of territory off someone, you're asking for trouble next time if you lose (to anyone).

For an example, perhaps you could reduce warscore cost in peace deals in proportion to the AE penalty your nation has towards the losing nation. This already kind of exists with the dishonourable scum CB, but I don't see why it needs to be a separate CB when it can just be a continuous scaling of warscore cost, prestige, and AE penalty, based on your existing AE with that nation.

While it's an evocative title, considering that Healing the Great Schism is an in-game event for Orthodox countries, it might be better to rename it to something that will attract people interested in the fighting going on over the patch.

Perhaps the title was intended to avoid attracting the crowds of people who are only interested in flaming. It was looking like it failed here for a minute (I had to change this line three times while writing this post and reading the replies), but maybe we can keep it cool and constructive after all.

 

[pac]

"Schisms" — while a melodramatic way of putting it — are nothing new when it comes to EU:

This project began more than a year and a half ago as a cry for greater realism and depth from a powerful game engine that was undermined by a rushed release and a few unfortunate design decisions. Europa Universalis III had lots going for it, but many found it to be less enjoyable than its predecessor.

The community was polarized. On one side, many players enjoyed the new game, while on the other many players hated the new game and felt it was little more than a fantasy game with real-world names in it. Where was the history in all the randomness? Players who enjoyed the game retorted that they didn’t want a game, they wanted a history book.

How was this "schism" resolved? It wasn't. There are legions of players who played hours of EUIII who have only the vaguest memories of what the vanilla game was like, because they never played it.

You can see Paradox's reaction to the desire for more historicity (or at least historical flavour) — and the success of Magna Mundi, among other mods which placed more emphasis on historical plausibility — in various features of EUIV, such as the Unique National Ideas, and the return of what are now billed as Dynamic Historical Events.


You're never going to bring all EU players under one roof. The divisions are not nearly so simple as the OP has painted them:

• Some players want to be able to literally conquer every province on the map — others think that the notion of world conquest is quite absurd in this period;
• Some want alternate historical events to happen commonly, and regard the collapse of Burgundy, for example, as a fluke that should not have special scripting — others want history to unfold on schedule except where they, the player, intervene, and will be disappointed if they don't see Hapsburg, Ottoman and Mughal Empires in roughly their appointed times and places;
• Some want events to be linked to the country: France should build Versailles and be the birthplace of Revolution in Europe*; England should get a Civil War — others want events to be related to circumstances: if France has a strong Parliament and England is an Absolutism, there is no reason why they should get those historical events (they might even get each other's);
• Some want accurate military and finances: states of this period were racked with debt and dependent on mercenaries, so the same should be the case in-game — others are happy to settle for an abstraction.

And these mostly relate to cases where what the historical situation was is pretty clear, and not widely argued, and the question relates more to whether it should be closely reflected in the game, abstracted, or sidelined entirely in the interests of gameplay. When it comes to cases where the historical situation is arguable, well — we've all seen those threads. In other words, we could go on and on here.


How do you get the EU everybody wants? You don't. Regarding proposal one from above:

Fighting a world war would no longer be a triviality of winning or losing a fraction of your holdings, but would simultaneously become a true existential threat

One branch of the historical crowd would be quick to point out that these wars were not existential threats to the powers capable of fighting them. (Colonial revolts and domestic revolution, on the other hand, were.)

So as an attempt to build a consensus it doesn't even get out of the starting gate.


How do you get the EU you want? Via modding (or not-modding, if you're happy with the vanilla product). Or, if you insist, by campaigning for Paradox to make changes — but inevitably taking that path is going to create conflict. And even if Paradox does decide to implement your great idea, they'll also put in a bunch of other things you never asked for at all, and no one else had ever even thought of.

In the EUIII era, it was largely those who wanted a game with more historical detail who turned to mods. With Paradox's revival of more historical elements in EUIV, it may be that those who want a light and breezy conquest game may increasingly turn to mods. Fortunately for them, this won't be too hard a task, as stripping down the system to enable that kind of gameplay is a lot easier than carefully adding detail to the world, region by region.


TLDR: Nothing new under the sun. Don't kid yourself that you can make everyone happy.


*But that was Brussels! … Shush! Not important right now!

 

[Hommnom]

While I'm also disheartened that this almost turned into a flamewar on page one, I think it may not have been productive to preemptively accuse people of "cookie-cutter replies". Kind of takes an aggressive tone right off the bat.

However, I think you make a few fairly brilliant points, especially this:

One side comprises players who prefer domination strategies (strategy shapes overall game evolution), who tend to have strong preferences for flexibility and weak preferences for risk, and to prefer 1.1. The other comprises players who prefer opportunistic strategies (overall game evolution shapes strategy), who tend to have strong preferences for risk and weak preferences for flexibility, prefer 1.2.

I think that's a great way to sum up what seems to be the two major playstyles. I'm definitely in the latter camp, as I prefer a more reactive, opportunistic style of gameplay. Now, at least in EU3 and possibly EU4 pre-1.2, it seems that both playstyles were catered to, depending on what country you chose. If you wanted to dictate the strategy on a major scale, pick a large, powerful country at the outset; while if you wanted a more reactive game where you had to be opportunistic to survive, expand, and eventually thrive, pick a small, minor country.

I've only been playing one game so far since 1.2 - I couldn't decide on a country, thanks to all the exciting new NIs, so I hit random and picked the first country it gave me, Malacca. It's only been about 40 years in-game but I'm having a lot of fun so far, although the country definitely suits my style of play as they start small, but are in a good position to expand if you are opportunistic and a bit lucky. I've roughly quadrupled in size since the game started and so far I don't find expanding to be "grindy" at all as I've seen it said before, but you do need to be a bit patient and diplomacy seems way more important now, which I realize isn't for everyone.

My question is: is the issue now that picking a major country at the start no longer caters to the first style of play, i.e. one where you sort of set your goals, decide where you want to expand, and dictate the pace of the game? If it doesn't anymore, I can see how this is an issue - but if this is the case, what specifically is different now that makes it this way? Any thoughts on this?

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

I'm not sure I have anything more to give than that assessment, but I think the reason many people object to being told to use mods is that 1) it's most often done in a derisive or smug tone, even when the poster seems to be actively trying not to sound as such; 2) it's generally associated with making the game "easier" rather than "modifying" the game by both suggesters and those receiving suggestions, and framed as such; 3) it prevents ironman and permanent decisions (and this is a big deal regardless of which aspects of ironman you like).

1) How someone takes that suggestion is their own business, but it doesn't make it somehow a bad suggestion.

2) In my experience a mod makes the game harder or adds new features that expand gameplay options, this isn't a bad thing. I'd argue that the ability to create and then use mods is easily the largest single draw of PI games compared to games from other developers.

3) I like Ironman, personally, because it means that when someone posts their insane achievement I can go "Oh, thats great!" as opposed to "Oh, how many cheats did you use for that one?". But if people want it for the permanent decision aspect of it then I think it'd make sense to see this "copperman" mode that has been suggested.

 

[Daema]

In the EUIII era, it was largely those who wanted a game with more historical detail who turned to mods. With Paradox's revival of more historical elements in EUIV, it may be that those who want a light and breezy conquest game may increasingly turn to mods. Fortunately for them, this won't be too hard a task, as stripping down the system to enable that kind of gameplay is a lot easier than carefully adding detail to the world, region by region.

Good post up until that point. This argument has never had anything to do with difficulty. Those who have issue with historical limitations don't want an easy game, they just don't want to be told 'that didn't happen historically, so you can't do it'. Let me do it and show me what would have happened if someone had done it or had tried to do it historically. Most of the anti-expansion mechanics in the game at the moment are either ahistorical or so abstract that they don't have any clear real world equivalent.

Also, it is possible to please both sides: add an option to turn off deterministic historical events, etc.

 

[unmerged(88013)]

I play the game the way I like to play it, if I need to I change my playstyle to react to changes in the game. If absolutely required I mod a few features.

I liked 1.1 and I like 1.2. Whining about it isn't going to fix a playstyle you prefer suddenly work, mod the game and play as you want to. If you think a lot of people think similarly to you, share the mod.

This ^^

It seems to me that there's a lot of stubbornness and pride going on. Some people are unwilling to change the difficulty or AI/player bonuses, yet they want to ROFLStomp and WC without any challenge whatsoever. The problem with that is it makes the game ridiculously easy for everyone else on the default settings.

I can't see what the problem is honestly. The game is wide open to customisation. If you don't like a feature mod it out or change it. If it's too difficult because it involves scripting, find a mod that does it.

If it's too hard on the default settings, change them. What else is there to discuss really?

 

[jonman122]

This ^^

It seems to me that there's a lot of stubbornness and pride going on. Some people are unwilling to change the difficulty or AI/player bonuses, yet they want to ROFLStomp and WC without any challenge whatsoever. The problem with that is it makes the game ridiculously easy for everyone else on the default settings.

I can't see what the problem is honestly. The game is wide open to customisation. If you don't like a feature mod it out or change it. If it's too difficult because it involves scripting, find a mod that does it.

If it's too hard on the default settings, change them. What else is there to discuss really?

Please don't just flame. As already explained, some people do like to have Ironman mode have a level that they can play at and attempt to get the achievements, not step out of the gate and get utterly destroyed so the prospect of ever getting any of the achievements for the game is out of the question. For a lot of people those achievements are goals that have some small tangible benefit (a medal of sorts) and this gives them some greater reason to play than just sandbox. I personally play either way but after having some achievements in EU3 for a short time I understand entirely the desire to have them in the game (especially since at the point they were implemented I'd done almost everything I could think of.)

There are a lot of things to discuss, things that could be potentially balanced or fixed. Contributing is helpful.

 

[zodium]

"Schisms" — while a melodramatic way of putting it — are nothing new when it comes to EU:
How was this "schism" resolved? It wasn't. There are legions of players who played hours of EUIII who have only the vaguest memories of what the vanilla game was like, because they never played it.

First of all, thanks for such a long and considered response. It’s not as optimistic as I had hoped, but it is the kind of discussion I had hoped to engender. For this and reasons I’m about to get to, I hope I can convince you that I may meet with more success than the chances you give me here warrant.

You're never going to bring all EU players under one roof. The divisions are not nearly so simple as the OP has painted them:
• Some players want to be able to literally conquer every province on the map — others think that the notion of world conquest is quite absurd in this period;
• Some want alternate historical events to happen commonly, and regard the collapse of Burgundy, for example, as a fluke that should not have special scripting — others want history to unfold on schedule except where they, the player, intervene, and will be disappointed if they don't see Hapsburg, Ottoman and Mughal Empires in roughly their appointed times and places;
• Some want events to be linked to the country: France should build Versailles and be the birthplace of Revolution in Europe*; England should get a Civil War — others want events to be related to circumstances: if France has a strong Parliament and England is an Absolutism, there is no reason why they should get those historical events (they might even get each other's);
• Some want accurate military and finances: states of this period were racked with debt and dependent on mercenaries, so the same should be the case in-game — others are happy to settle for an abstraction.
And these mostly relate to cases where what the historical situation was is pretty clear, and not widely argued, and the question relates more to whether it should be closely reflected in the game, abstracted, or sidelined entirely in the interests of gameplay. When it comes to cases where the historical situation is arguable, well — we've all seen those threads. In other words, we could go on and on here.

I think I should make clear here that my intention is not to bring all players to the same preferences, or under one roof. My broader intention here is to establish a common language, and to use that language to come up with satisficing (meeting certain minimum criteria) compromise solutions. I think your post adds to it a little bit of credibility with respect to that goal.

Your first example could be roughly mapped onto a conflict of goals between strong historicity and strong flexibility preferences, your second to weak flexibility with weak historicity versus weak flexibility versus weak historicity with strong flexibility, etc. It is generally easier to come up with good solutions with a well-developed jargon that applies to the topic at large, and I think flexibility/risk/historicity preference framework seems to capture the EU topic well. The framework isn't meant to be a solution.

How do you get the EU you want? Via modding (or not-modding, if you're happy with the vanilla product). Or, if you insist, by campaigning for Paradox to make changes — but inevitably taking that path is going to create conflict. And even if Paradox does decide to implement your great idea, they'll also put in a bunch of other things you never asked for at all, and no one else had ever even thought of.

Well, unless Paradox is going to start paying me, I wouldn’t want to do all their design work for them, anyway.

In all seriousness, though, I’ve already posted my thoughts on mods as a general solution to this. As things stand, it seems both impractical and undesirable to me, but that could change with some added power and flexibility (e.g. Copperman, control over most underlying equations).

Good post up until that point. This argument has never had anything to do with difficulty. Those who have issue with historical limitations don't want an easy game, they just don't want to be told 'that didn't happen historically, so you can't do it'. Let me do it and show me what would have happened if someone had done it or had tried to do it historically. Most of the anti-expansion mechanics in the game at the moment are either ahistorical or so abstract that they don't have any clear real world equivalent.

Also, it is possible to please both sides: add an option to turn off deterministic historical events, etc.

We all have our preferences here, I think we can forgive one slip-up phrasing for this one. It's hard for me to say he's not posting in good faith, at least.

 

[pac]

Good post up until that point. This argument has never had anything to do with difficulty.

For some, no; for others, yes.

Here is a thread started this very day by someone looking for a way to make the game easier than default 1.2, for example.

I am not trying to divide the EU community into two neat camps. Quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the divisions are far more numerous and complicated than that.

If you don't want a "light and breezy conquest game", then guess what? That quote wasn't referring to you, and was not an attempt to (mis)characterise your position!

Nonetheless, there are lots of people who do want a "light and breezy conquest game". They would be as put off by an extreme level of detail on internal Venetian politics (even if it did not affect difficulty at all) as they would be by increased difficulty.

In many ways, I think EUIII may actually have got it right by making "light and breezy" the default, since the set of players who just want that type of game are also probably the set of players least likely to be so committed to the game that they are prepared to go looking for mods.

Those who have issue with historical limitations don't want an easy game, they just don't want to be told 'that didn't happen historically, so you can't do it'. Let me do it and show me what would have happened if someone had done it or had tried to do it historically. Most of the anti-expansion mechanics in the game at the moment are either ahistorical or so abstract that they don't have any clear real world equivalent.

Yes, I'm quite willing to believe that a group with those views exists.

Also, it is possible to please both sides: add an option to turn off deterministic historical events, etc.

But there are many more than two sides: some people like deterministic historical events.

 

[jonman122]

For some, no; for others, yes.

Here is a thread started this very day by someone looking for a way to make the game easier than default 1.2, for example.

I am not trying to divide the EU community into two neat camps. Quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the divisions are far more numerous and complicated than that.

If you don't want a "light and breezy conquest game", then guess what? That quote wasn't referring to you, and was not an attempt to (mis)characterise your position!

Nonetheless, there are lots of people who do want a "light and breezy conquest game". They would be as put off by an extreme level of detail on internal Venetian politics (even if it did not affect difficulty at all) as they would be by increased difficulty.

In many ways, I think EUIII may actually have got it right by making "light and breezy" the default, since the set of players who just want that type of game are also probably the set of players least likely to be so committed to the game that they are prepared to go looking for mods.


Yes, I'm quite willing to believe that a group with those views exists.


But there are many more than two sides: some people like deterministic historical events.

While I don't agree that people want it to be light and breezy, I do think that people would like it to be slightly more conquest-friendly, with less sudden alliance breaking from the AI ruining your chances for survival/expansion depending on your situation, or as was my situation with Ryukyu, suddenly having 24 000 castillians in Taiwan in the early 1500's. Those are things that if fixed don't make the game light and breezy, but make playing the smaller nations slightly more playable than absolutely impossible.

and I do agree that there are more than two sides, but the brunt of the community seems to be made up of mostly these 2 groups.

EDIT: what I should say is that everyone has their own viewpoint and opinions on what could be changed or kept, but that's exactly what this discussion is regarding. It's just asking what could be done to fairly balance the game so a majority of players enjoy it, rather than having it be so simple it's ridiculous or so impossibly hard only the best of the best could even hope to get their feet off the ground. At this moment it's skewed in the direction of harder, making many peoples goals impossible.

 

[Daema]

For some, no; for others, yes.

Here is a thread started this very day by someone looking for a way to make the game easier than default 1.2, for example.

I am not trying to divide the EU community into two neat camps. Quite the opposite: I am pointing out that the divisions are far more numerous and complicated than that.

If you don't want a "light and breezy conquest game", then guess what? That quote wasn't referring to you, and was not an attempt to (mis)characterise your position!

It's your linking of historical events to difficulty that I took issue with:

"With Paradox's revival of more historical elements in EUIV, it may be that those who want a light and breezy conquest game may increasingly turn to mods"

Historical elements are a completely separate issue to difficulty. Having an easy historical game is just as possible as a difficult sandbox game.

But there are many more than two sides: some people like deterministic historical events.

And how would those people be affected by the game having an option they can decide not to use?

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

and I do agree that there are more than two sides, but the brunt of the community seems to be made up of mostly these 2 groups.

Just because they're vocal doesn't mean they're a majority. Furthermore I don't see how a majority or minority are even an issue. If there is a problem with elements of the late game, which I agree there is, then it isn't a matter of one side being a majority or otherwise.

 

[unmerged(88013)]

Please don't just flame. As already explained, some people do like to have Ironman mode have a level that they can play at and attempt to get the achievements, not step out of the gate and get utterly destroyed so the prospect of ever getting any of the achievements for the game is out of the question.

I wasn't flaming anyone. I was just stating that flexibility is the key. The game itself says in the tips that if the game is too difficult, try turning down the settings. The apparent problem is that many people are unwilling to do that for what ever reasons.

As far as Ironman mode is concerned, just because one or more games are played without it, it doesn't mean every game has to be. How about starting off on easy and working your way up? That seems reasonable to me.

If someone plays a OPM, with full AI skill, lucky nations on, and just goes on a conquest spree without a concern for his or hers neighbours, I have no sympathy. A little common sense can go a long way.

For a lot of people those achievements are goals that have some small tangible benefit (a medal of sorts) and this gives them some greater reason to play than just sandbox. I personally play either way but after having some achievements in EU3 for a short time I understand entirely the desire to have them in the game (especially since at the point they were implemented I'd done almost everything I could think of.)

Yes, but does that mean the game has to be dumbed down on the default settings to cater for people who like to WC with a OPM on Ironman? Because if it does, you can count me out.