Healing the Great Schism

[pac]

That's what's wrong with the term, though. It's along these lines: Easy Mode Mockery trope, in the effect. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you should transplant this directly onto the issue, but I hope it's a helpful analogy. The mode could just as well have a clearly neutral or positive name, like "Expansionist."

"Expansionist" is also a description that tells you precisely nothing about the mode.

"Why is it called Expansionist mode? Does that mean I can't expand in other modes?"

"No, you can expand in all the modes. It's just a mode where expansion is easier."

"Why don't they call it Easy Expansion mode then?"

"Because then a bunch of players would get upset because you used the word 'Easy' within 100 miles of them …"

There's quite enough direct attacks going on between posters without worrying that any use of any term might be some, further, sneaky indirect attack on whatever it is that you might want out of the game at the moment.

 

[Daema]

"Expansionist" is also a description that tells you precisely nothing about the mode.

"Why is it called Expansionist mode? Does that mean I can't expand in other modes?"

"No, you can expand in all the modes. It's just a mode where expansion is easier."

"Why don't they call it Easy Expansion mode then?"

"Because the AI expands at the same rate and the challenges are the same, just scaled for a faster level of player and AI expansion."

 

[pac]

"Because the AI expands at the same rate —"

Not in any version of EU I've ever seen.

 

[zodium]

"Expansionist" is also a description that tells you precisely nothing about the mode.

"Why is it called Expansionist mode? Does that mean I can't expand in other modes?"

"No, you can expand in all the modes. It's just a mode where expansion is easier."

"Why don't they call it Easy Expansion mode then?"

"Because then a bunch of players would get upset because you used the word 'Easy' within 100 miles of them …"

There's quite enough direct attacks going on between posters without worrying that any use of any term might be some, further, sneaky indirect attack on whatever it is that you might want out of the game at the moment.

This would probably be a smaller problem without the ongoing civil war, but there's so much hostility going on that just about anything puts people in complete alarm mode. Any suggestion to relax the game constraints is met with exaggerated and fearful responses that we'll go back to 1.1 PU mechanics, regardless of the concrete proposal, while any suggestion that we maintain constraints is met with the exact same, opposing response, also regardless of the concrete proposal. Again, I can't force you to argue your opinion one way or another, but I doubt you'll meet with much success going down this "just grow thicker skin" line of reasoning if you're very attached to the "Arcade" name.

Yes, the effect would be negligible if Paradox actually implemented and named an arcade mode whatever they wanted to, but that's besides the point. What's on point is that a forum user raising a proposal in the current environment, using ambiguously negative terminology, is almost guaranteed to meet with lots of reactance, and that's what this thread is all about preventing.

 

[pac]

I don't know why those in favour of 1.2 have such a hard time grasping this. Fading Cores on/off,

You can mod that.

Historical Events on/off

Would take a bit longer, but you can mod that.

and Expansion (base tax modifier on peace costs, AI agressiveness, AI tolerance for expansion before joining coalitions, AE, OE) fast/slow would solve most issues and keep everybody happy.

Pretty much all moddable.


And, setting aside the historical events switch, it wouldn't take much more than about an hour to do. It's just finding and changing a few values in defines.lua. Instead of arguing here, you could create and release a super-popular mod this afternoon! It might be so popular that it would prove to Paradox that this was what everyone wanted all along, and they'd adopt your changes in their next version.*

(*This is exactly what happened in trade, where I doubt it's coincidence that every mod to make significant changes to trade reduced the merchant boost factor to: 5%.)

 

[Daema]

Not in any version of EU I've ever seen.

We're talking about options that could be implemented in EU4, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

[pac]

We're talking about options that could be implemented in EU4, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Creating a mode where the AI is just as capable of expanding rapidly as a human player is a totally different story from creating one where the mechanics limiting expansion are relaxed.


Edit: And if you did create a mode where the AI was that good at expanding? All the players who want to take over the world with OPMs would hate it, because they are going to get squashed within the first few decades of the game …

 

[Phi]

We're talking about options that could be implemented in EU4, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

A decent player can always expand faster than the AI (everything else equal).

 

[zodium]

Please, can we not turn this into another generic 1.1 versus 1.2 thread? Arguing about whether 1.1 or 1.2, or expansionist or opportunistic strategies are "best" is simply off-topic and will be reported to the mods. There are dozens of threads and thousands of posts on the matter already, we don't need another.

A decent player can always expand faster than the AI (everything else equal).

A player can do everything better than an AI, ceteris paribus. This is uncontroversial to everyone, I think, but the degree of difference and its practical significance for what is and is not a viable suggestion is not. pac can't dismiss something because their beliefs about how EU is coded and structured tells them it can't be done--they might be right, but they don't know that, because whether they are depends on a stupid amount of extremely specific choices that no one but Paradox and possibly no one but Wiz are in a position to know.

 

[Daema]

Creating a mode where the AI is just as capable of expanding rapidly as a human player is a totally different story from creating one where the mechanics limiting expansion are relaxed.

Wait, is this someone in favour of 1.2 actually admitting that the AI's ability to challenge the player is a separate issue from expansion levels? People have been saying that all week, so I don't know what your point is. I want both a loosening of the anti-expansion mechanics on both the AI and the player and a more expansionist AI that takes advantage of that to challenge me. Now you see why I can't turn to modding.

 

[pjnlsn]

I for one don't see any huge diffs between 1.1 and 1.2 - just a long list of tweaks

the only thing i'm absolutely pissed off about is the network bugs (though they say that they'll fix a lot of multiplayer bugs soon). Still, I would've much preferred if PDX had perfected the networking code this time around, this is the fourth installment, after all.

 

[pac]

Wait, is this someone in favour of 1.2

It helps if you don't make assumptions, you know. I don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't played any version of the vanilla game in weeks. I don't care what anti-expansion mechanics (or lack of), Paradox settles on. I don't particularly like those in 1.1 or 1.2. I'll end up changing them to something else anyway.

My argument is very simple: if there's something you want from the game, and you think lots of other people want it too — mod it. If it becomes really popular, it will prove to Paradox that this is something people want, and their future changes may move in your direction.

People have been saying that all week, so I don't know what your point is. I want both a loosening of the anti-expansion mechanics on both the AI and the player and a more expansionist AI that takes advantage of that to challenge me. Now you see why I can't turn to modding.

No, I don't see why you can't do some modding. You can mod AI behaviour too, you know.

Can you achieve everything you want via modding? No, probably not. Partly because some things can't be modded — but more because modding is difficult. (I want to get AI Portugal to the Indian Ocean in the 1510s — that's really difficult if you don't want to do it by corraling it via fixed events!) But you can go a very long way towards it, proving along the way that your constituency is not just some noisy forumites but lots of committed players.


However, your attitude that modding is not an acceptable solution (even as a means to an end) in the wake of 1.2 does seem to be a common one: I've just looked through the first three pages of topics in the modding forum, and I can't see a single project related to a "loosening of the anti-expansion mechanics" and "a more expansionist AI". (Similar story among the recent releases on the Workshop.)

Shame, because, like I say — it wouldn't be that difficult and it would probably be very popular.

 

[Prodicus]

I don't see why "arcade mode" should have negative connotations. To me it would be the same sort of thing as an always war mod. It wouldn't necessarily be easier, but it would provide an experience entirely centered around fast-paced strategy for those who want that sort of gameplay. Heck, I'm proudly one of those NOFUNALLOWED role-playing history nerds, and even I'd play a few games in arcade every now and then, just for the change of pace. We just need to realize that grand strategy gamers basically want three different games from EUIV, and it would be fairly easy to provide that for the community by creating three different modes with different expansion mechanics.

But if people would REALLY get offended by their playstyle being called "arcade", just call it Napoleon Mode or something.

Either way, there's no reason we should all get buttfrustrated at each other just because we want to play different variations on the same game. Instead of agitating to get our own preferred mechanics in a single game mode, which will just result in the devs pandering to everyone and completely pleasing no one, we should agitate to have the devs create several different game modes. To elaborate a bit more on how I see this working, we could have:

-A Historical Mode, where the ease of expansion fluctuates considerably based on the time and place, and in line with historical plausibility. So, for instance, in 1800 France or Austria can conquer and core Europe really fast (but massive coalitions will form really quickly for little AE), random international coalitions of natives don't form against GB (but attrition is much higher overseas until your tech/presence there increases), giant swathes of territory can be taken in 1700s colonial wars (but that massively increases colonial rebel chance), etc. etc. etc. It could allow for far greater fluctuations in power and a lot more risk to strong empires, but also greater opportunity for extremely skilled players (unless they're playing Ryukyu, Albania, etc., of course). This mode would generally be around 1.2 in terms of difficulty of expansion, with the historical part making certain aspects a lot easier and certain parts a lot harder.
-A Normal Mode, where expansion is somewhere between 1.13 and 1.2 in difficulty and speed. Perhaps keep the basic expansion mechanics constant in this mode for those who want a fairly consistent gameplay experience and less risk.
-An "Arcade"/Napoleon Mode, where expansion is easy for anyone who has the military and economic capabilities to carry it out. Make coring faster (or get rid of OE altogether!), make manpower replenish faster, etc., and have all these bonii apply to the AI as well, so the game presents a serious endgame challenge of massive blob wars.

I don't think any of these modes would be "easy" or "difficult", they would just offer fundamentally different experiences to players with fundamentally different desires.

Moreover, I'm not a dev and have only made a few crappy event mods in Paradox games, so maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't think this would be enormously difficult to program. Surely if implemented it would solve the pointless divisions we've been experiencing lately.

Who's with me?

 

[Daema]

It helps if you don't make assumptions, you know. I don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't played any version of the vanilla game in weeks. I don't care what anti-expansion mechanics (or lack of), Paradox settles on. I don't particularly like those in 1.1 or 1.2. I'll end up changing them to something else anyway.

My argument is very simple: if there's something you want from the game, and you think lots of other people want it too — mod it. If it becomes really popular, it will prove to Paradox that this is something people want, and their future changes may move in your direction.


No, I don't see why you can't do some modding. You can mod AI behaviour too, you know.

Can you achieve everything you want via modding? No, probably not. Partly because some things can't be modded — but more because modding is difficult. But you can go a very long way towards it, proving along the way that your constituency is not just some noisy forumites but lots of committed players.


However, your attitude that modding is not an acceptable solution (even as a means to an end) in the wake of 1.2 does seem to be a common one: I've just looked through the first three pages of topics in the modding forum, and I can't see a single project related to a "loosening of the anti-expansion mechanics" and "a more expansionist AI". (Similar story among the recent releases on the Workshop.)

Shame, because, like I say — it wouldn't be that difficult and it would probably be very popular.

There are two other reasons I won't turn to modding:

I'm pretty sure Paradox didn't intend to change the game so drastically, I think they made a lot of little changes that made sense, but when put together changed the game more than they intended. I could be wrong, but I'm not going to start a mod when the next patch could resolve the issues I have.

The other reason is that that I always back up my Paradox games before updates, and for now I'm happy playing 1.1. There were some things from 1.2 I'd like to have though, so that's only a temporary solution.

 

[CyaN]

Well, going back to the original post I'm starting to see a problem: is there a genuine interest in making a compromise that satisfies both sides, in the discussions about 1.2? Honestly I have to conclude that no, not really. People who love it, *by a large margin* (there are also some constructive posters who make interesting contributions of course, especially in some pages of this thread) want the game to remain absolutely unchanged, or expansion to be further prevented, and they could care less about the rest of the playerbase. References about "easy mode", "I win button" and such are optional but preferred, and sometimes it's worded as a clear flame while some other times it's worded politely.

Therefore, I honestly don't think a constructive discussion about 1.2 leading to a compromise solution is possible (which is the fact that made this into a "schism" instead of simply a calmed dicussion about new features), because people can't agree if they are not willing to agree, so probably the best course of action would be to sit on our hands and wait for Paradox to decide changes for the next patch. I mean, by now it's clear that there IS a huge discussion about new features that ARE very contentious. Few dare to deny that anything at all is happening.

 

[zodium]

Well, going back to the original post I'm starting to see a problem: is there a genuine interest in making a compromise that satisfies both sides, in the discussions about 1.2? Honestly I have to conclude that no, not really. People who love it *by a large margin* (there are also some constructive posters who make interesting contributions of course, especially in some pages of this thread) want the game to remain absolutely unchanged, or expansion to be further prevented, and they could care less about the rest of the playerbase. References about "easy mode", "I win button" and such are optional but preferred, and sometimes it's worded as a clear flame while some other times it's worded politely.

Therefore, I honestly don't think a constructive discussion about 1.2 leading to a compromise solution is possible (which is the fact that made this into a "schism" instead of simply a calmed dicussion about new features), because people can't agree if they are not willing to agree, so probably the best course of action would be to sit on our hands and wait for Paradox to decide changes for the next patch. I mean, by now it's clear that there IS a huge discussion about new features that ARE very contentious. Few dare to deny that anything at all is happening.

A lot of good suggestions have been coming up (fantastic post by Prodicus right here, I think, which I agree with and have nothing to add to), which I've been keeping track of and will try to summarize when people start getting tired of fighting (probably soon). It's been almost a week, and soon there'll only be a few diehards left bashing their heads against each others' heads. This thread especially turned out very nice after page 1, with well-considered arguments, but I agree there's not a lot of good will towards actively reconciling. Still, some good stuff, and I saw ideas originating here disseminate to other threads, so I don't think it's a wash. We've gone from "1.2 rules, 1.1 drools" versus "1.1 rules, 1.2 drools" to a much more nuanced, detailed debate, even if trite arguments that were discussed to death by last Wednesday also get brought up by both sides on the regular.

I'm also keeping the framework.

 

[Prodicus]

Well, going back to the original post I'm starting to see a problem: is there a genuine interest in making a compromise that satisfies both sides, in the discussions about 1.2? Honestly I have to conclude that no, not really. People who love it *by a large margin* (there are also some constructive posters who make interesting contributions of course, especially in some pages of this thread) want the game to remain absolutely unchanged, or expansion to be further prevented, and they could care less about the rest of the playerbase. References about "easy mode", "I win button" and such are optional but preferred, and sometimes it's worded as a clear flame while some other times it's worded politely.

Therefore, I honestly don't think a constructive discussion about 1.2 leading to a compromise solution is possible (which is the fact that made this into a "schism" instead of simply a calmed dicussion about new features), because people can't agree if they are not willing to agree, so probably the best course of action would be to sit on our hands and wait for Paradox to decide changes for the next patch. I mean, by now it's clear that there IS a huge discussion about new features that ARE very contentious. Few dare to deny that anything at all is happening.

I think the problem is that too many people are framing the issue in the wrong way.

Imagine that you have a bunch of people who go to a restaurant they love to buy soup. Some of them love tomato soup. Some prefer clam chowder. Some want pea soup. Say the restaurant only serves one of those, occasionally changing it up. What should the customers do in this situation in order to "compromise?" They could just try to have the cooks mix the three soups together, and then tear each other's hair out arguing over the proportions. That, of course, would just lead to a gross tomato-pea-clam chowder soup that pleases no one. Instead, the "compromise" should be to ask the cooks to serve all three soups separately.

That's what I think we need to do.

Heck, make it paid DLC if you want, Paradox. I'd gladly pay a few bucks for new game modes.

 

[Kinghillard]

Well the HRE is still too easy, i mean i didn't even take me 100 years to renovate that joint as the palatinate.

 

[CyaN]

A lot of good suggestions have been coming up (fantastic post by Prodicus right here, I think, which I agree with and have nothing to add to), which I've been keeping track of and will try to summarize when people start getting tired of fighting (probably soon). It's been almost a week, and soon there'll only be a few diehards left bashing their heads against each others' heads. This thread especially turned out very nice after page 1, with well-considered arguments, but I agree there's not a lot of good will towards actively reconciling. Still, some good stuff, and I saw ideas originating here disseminate to other threads, so I don't think it's a wash. We've gone from "1.2 rules, 1.1 drools" versus "1.1 rules, 1.2 drools" to a much more nuanced, detailed debate, even if trite arguments that were discussed to death by last Wednesday also get brought up by both sides on the regular.

Yes, this definitely was the most constructive thread about the issue and some great ideas popped up earlier, so it served its purpose to some extent. But I wanted to point how "utopian" I think the aim of the thread is, to avoid disappointments. Conciliation will come when Paradox unilaterally satisfies most of the playerbase with an eventual patch (in which they maybe won't add anything that was talked about in the forums), not by lengthy discussion amongst ourselves leading to a compromise. So don't take it too seriously

I think the problem is that too many people are framing the issue in the wrong way.

Imagine that you have a bunch of people who go to a restaurant they love to buy soup. Some of them love tomato soup. Some prefer clam chowder. Some want pea soup. Say the restaurant only serves one of those, occasionally changing it up. What should the customers do in this situation in order to "compromise?" They could just try to have the cooks mix the three soups together, and then tear each other's hair out arguing over the proportions. That, of course, would just lead to a gross tomato-pea-clam chowder soup that pleases no one. Instead, the "compromise" should be to ask the cooks to serve all three soups separately.

That's what I think we need to do.

Heck, make it paid DLC if you want, Paradox. I'd gladly pay a few bucks for new game modes.

That's a fair alternative.

I think EUIV has gathered a lot of different players who want a lot of different things from the game: EU2 players, EU3 players, CK2 players, Vicky players, Paradox newcomers... I won't say what does each group of player want specifically, because that would probably lead to a flame , but anyway it's clear they want vastly different things from the game. And, in many cases, unfortunately, they're unable or unwilling to see that people different from themselves also exist and should not be forced to play the exact same game they, and only they, enjoy. So, yes, broader options would be great.

 

[Yeekim]

I don't have time or inclination to read the whole thread, but I'll throw my support behind the "copperman" mode.
Actually, might've been me who you stole it from. Or I wouldn't me surprised if somebody else floated that great idea as well.
In any case, make it happen!