How did Conclave ruin the game?

[Melichai]

realm peace. It is an irony in the context of your complain that changing succession laws is easier in conclave than ever before.

Early days, but fairly sure you can only institute realm peace if you give the AI some say in the governance of the realm - that way madness lies.

Non-Ironman I can just console over to one or the other of the "combatants" and white peace out the epic struggle over child benefits due from Count A due to one of his guards interfering with the sheep of Count B. Fun.

 

[Robert II]

Early days, but fairly sure you can only institute realm peace if you give the AI some say in the governance of the realm - that way madness lies.

Non-Ironman I can just console over to one or the other of the "combatants" and white peace out the epic struggle over child benefits due from Count A due to one of his guards interfering with the sheep of Count B. Fun.

You should give the vassals a say in ruling. If you give them war declaration voting any member of the council can't join factions. And it's rather easy to get them to agree to most wars.

 

[Melichai]

You should give the vassals a say in ruling. If you give them war declaration voting any member of the council can't join factions. And it's rather easy to get them to agree to most wars.

I don't really care if people join factions. A rebellion is an excuse to take their titles and redistribute them to myculture/myreligion vassals or my own dynasty, which is all the more important given the nerfing of the positive opinion factors. The introduction of a mechanic is not in itself an argument for that mechanic being fun.

 

[Maeldun]

At this point, you're just fear-mongering. Creating a rash of false and mistaken bug reports doesn't actually help anybody.

And you're assuming a lot. I have duke level vassals that start and remain head of factions long after their opinion of the liege reaches 100. Every time I've noticed it, it's a faction for Elective Monarchy succession. I have never observed this behavior prior to the 2.5.x patches. The wiki states that they'll leave a faction after their opinion reaches 80 and under 2.4.5 and previous versions (prior to 2.5.x's halving of nearly all positive opinion modifiers) this is consistent with what I've observed.

This isn't a bug report - this isn't even the bug report forum. It's observed behavior. If you can provide information that indicates that a particular bug report is false, by all means do so - but do it in the proper forum.

 

[BD13]

I don't know about the game, as I didn't buy Conclave yet, but it certainly ruined the forum. Even more. If that's even possible.

Agreed. I want to throw in my 1 cent. *Disclaimer... I also didn't buy it. just going off the patch.*. Also sorry for the bad English.

It is sad to see so many people arguing the extremes of this patch.

What upsets me is both sides taking the extremes. One side is acting like nothing is wrong and being complete and utter fanboys. The other side is somehow mad they can't take over the whole world in a few years without any penalty. To both extreme sides... You are not helping!

What's even worse are the people on both sides of the issue who have little experience with the new patch. This is especially aimed at the people who start as a small realm and take over a large chunk of the c2k world with barely getting any threat. You have to understand that your experience is different than someone starting out as an empire or even a king. Having played so many sized realms I honestly understand why you are so baffled with other players anger over infamy... Problem is you don't realize you can win 10-15 wars and somehow get less infamy than a player staring out as the ERE or abasssids who won one holy war.

Paradox has to do something about the blobs. This is just a swing and a miss IMO... And that is perfectly fine. They recognize an issue and are trying to fix it. They will get it right.

Even with these issues this is by far the best medieval war game on the market. Let's all help to make it better instead of blindly defending it or tearing it down.

My last comment is... If someone wants to role play a as a small realm... Good for you. If someone wants to take over the world... Good for you. Neither side should be punished for their play style. Instead paradox needs to find the right balance that enhances both types of play styles without limiting one or the other.

 

[Talq]

This is especially aimed at the people who start as a small realm and take over a large chunk of the c2k world with barely getting any threat. You have to understand that your experience is different than someone starting out as an empire or even a king. Having played so many sized realms I honestly understand why you are so baffled with other players anger over infamy... Problem is you don't realize you can win 10-15 wars and somehow get less infamy than a player staring out as the ERE or abasssids who won one holy war.

You will find that 'the large chunk of the CK2 world' is ... about the size the ERE and Abbasids start with. In my experience, threat starts to become an issue at normal de-jure empire level and is at 'deal with defensive pacts as a fact of life level' at twice that. Of course, the big however is that only a sizeable defensive pact, or another blob is going to challenge those two or something of similar size, so in reality people are complaining about a feature doing its job.

 

[Siggerad]

You will find that 'the large chunk of the CK2 world' is ... about the size the ERE and Abbasids start with. In my experience, threat starts to become an issue at normal de-jure empire level and is at 'deal with defensive pacts as a fact of life level' at twice that. Of course, the big however is that only a sizeable defensive pact, or another blob is going to challenge those two or something of similar size, so in reality people are complaining about a feature doing its job.

In "your" experience, so why impose your point of view in other players? and always talk about "people complaining", if is all perfect for you, good for you; respectfully i don´t take fanboys seriously is like "im right and the other players are crazy".

 

[Siegfriedfr]

Paradox has to do something about the blobs. This is just a swing and a miss IMO... And that is perfectly fine. They recognize an issue and are trying to fix it. They will get it right.
My last comment is... If someone wants to role play a as a small realm... Good for you. If someone wants to take over the world... Good for you. Neither side should be punished for their play style. Instead paradox needs to find the right balance that enhances both types of play styles without limiting one or the other.

QFT. At the moment, threat only prevents the player from blobbing fast, not the AI from blobbing slowly (not counting the OP abassid CBs which make them unreasonably expand every 50 years). Thus, the mechanic doesn't really work, it only makes the game more boring from the player point of view.

Also, the independance faction rarely have any success at breaking up blobs.

And also, the abassid caliph gets incredible opinion boosters that pretty much make the abassid too stable.

 

[gdj]

In "your" experience, so why impose your point of view in other players? and always talk about "people complaining", if is all perfect for you, good for you; respectfully i don´t take fanboys seriously is like "im right and the other players are crazy".

Respectfully, insulting everyone who does not share your view by calling him a "fanboy" is quite telling about your niveau either.

You see, i´m defending this mechanic in this thread too; if you read some of my older, pre-conclave, postings you will se in what harsh, even highly insulting, terms i critizised Pdx for not fixing seduction, the mega blobs and other issues, to the degree that i´m actually surprised not to be "on probation" or "banned".

Conclave made the game playable for me again, so i´m defending this mechanic here. So, if that suddenly and surprisingly makes me a fanboy in your view, i must say that your view is a bit...narrowminded.

 

[Siggerad]

Respectfully, insulting everyone who does not share your view by calling him a "fanboy" is quite telling about your niveau either.

You see, i´m defending this mechanic in this thread too; if you read some of my older, pre-conclave, postings you will se in what harsh, even highly insulting, terms i critizised Pdx for not fixing seduction, the mega blobs and other issues, to the degree that i´m actually surprised not to be "on probation" or "banned".

Conclave made the game playable for me again, so i´m defending this mechanic here. So, if that suddenly and surprisingly makes me a fanboy in your view, i must say that your view is a bit...narrowminded.

Ohh gdj nice comeback, is this for my last post to you?, i could not read your past post but i read the last ones about conclave-free patch, and some post of Talq too. "Defending this mechanic" is like some one is "attacking" a holy place.

In the same degree "conclave made the game playable" for you, now is unplayable for me. Maybe your insulting posts was for some frustration? if that is the case, why dont understand other fans frustrations with this mechanics?. Search for fanboy meaning is not insult, and Im not the only one, who respond to you, with "fanboy"bla bla bla... "need to defence" post.

Is annoying read "use a mod, back to previous patch, people are only complaining all is perfect. I invite you to read my past post about the issues, is not only one (coalitions/infamy), and if you have time, read the other players post about education, advisors link to council, shattered retreat, boring wait for a tick, 769 Bizantium is a blop?, and more. Or for a quick review Arumba video about conclave (yes i know you watched because i read your "positive" post there, is more for other fans )

 

[gdj]

Or for a quick review Arumba video about conclave (yes i know you watched because i read your "positive" post there, is more for other fans )

Huh? I don´t have a youtube account, actually. Did someone post as gdj there? Link?

 

[Rubidium]

A few thoughts:

• I really haven't had problems with faction revolts; if anything, the DLC now gives even more tools to avoid them (put your powerful vassals on the council; who cares if your steward or advisor is an ignoramus once you have a decent sized realm? and use excess siblings/uncles/nieces to create non-aggression pacts to neutralize the most dangerous threats). I think I had one faction revolt in my recent 300 year campaign, and it was a situation (lousy stat/wrong culture heir inheriting suddenly) that probably should have caused a revolt. I may have accepted a couple meaningless faction demands ("no, I don't want to fight a war over council control of banishment; you win this round"), but those were rare. I agree that it is more of a problem for the AI, who do encounter rebellions frequently.
  
• Having recently played a "minor ruler to massive emperor" game, I do agree that threat gets a bit tedious later on. I might suggest tweaking the numbers slightly, but that's it.
• Shattered retreat does its job, and so do the council/new laws.
  
• My biggest complaints (other than maybe a little tweaking to threat) are with the military AI (which has an obnoxious tendency to ignore the wargoal in favor of running around like a headless chicken) and the tendency for the AI to pick the "heritage" focus and then assign education to random foreign courtier who somehow ended up in the court.

 

[The Duke of GTFO]

This coalition stuff is hilariously bad.

Some Finish vagabond cares what I'm doing in Arabia? Really?

 

[Siggerad]

Huh? I don´t have a youtube account, actually. Did someone post as gdj there? Link?