How will Paradox keep the game from being too easy and prevent blobbing?

[Naughtius Maximus]

Historically, empires were expansionist flops or 1000 year towers.

Historically nearly all empires of this era were expansionist flops. The few that remained standing intact for more than 100 years lasted due to focusing almost entirely on internal issues, rarely if ever venturing out on expansionist binges.

To the game, what's going to encourage the AI to not be on a forever expansionist path?

No need to discourage it, just make it much easier for them (and the player) to fracture like the other expansionists of this era.

Sid never implemented falls in Civ. This was during the prototpying and player feedback stages of Civ. Players perceived the 'fall' as not 'the natural progression of an empire' but 'i must have screwed something up let me reload my save to avoid this'. They dont think of their empire declining. They think of it as

1) the computer is cheating
2) rubberbanding
3) the player screwed up something

They perceive the fall as a 'problem that can be prevented' not as 'a natural progression of the game'.

This isnt a game mechanics problem

In Civ the primary problem has been the same as here. Civs are extremely stable and don't actually fracture from internal issues. You grow the entire game, and difficulty only serves to make growing harder. In this case by giving the AI a head start.

So yeah 1) They're always going to think the computer is cheating.

2) if by rubberbanding meaning they snap back to old borders after expanding, that's pretty natural.

3) if they don't do proper management, of course they screwed up.

Its a player perception issue. How do you communicate to the player that this is normal and they accept it. How do you make those mechanics work, but make it clear that the AI is not 'cheating the game' because to most people that's how they're going to perceive that.

You let them know it's happening to the AI just as frequently. I'm always mildly surprised when a blob implodes, like in 769 CK2 start where the Egyptian Sultan and Persia can rarely split the green blob. If that happens frequently, as it did many patches ago, it won't be a surprise when the player's own realm fractures.

And by frequently the Abbasids used to fracture within 75-100 years of game start. They then patched it so everything remains more stable. Joy.

On the plus side the Umayyads of Spain in earlier starts now form their empire at about the same frequency as Charlemagne does. Largely because claimant factions were bumped up in priority. The Umayyads need two kingdoms to form the empire. In that vulnerable period holding two kingdoms and pissing vassals off (desires second kingdom opinion malus,) a claimant faction fires occassionally.

Wins occassionally. Almost permanently splits the two kingdoms, preventing empire formation. Without the empire title the Umayyads rarely if ever blob into Aquitaine as a Kingdom.

 

[Yeekim]

I think vassals should become much more likely to faction and generally conspire against the throne once a state has grown stronger than any of its neighbors.

 

[tribnia]

If your vassals could use your hook to become your tributary states, would it be useful?

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

It's perhaps not a solution to prevent blobbing but I just want to say that because of this thread, I started a last CKII game as Count of Dublin (cheating heavily for fun) in the Charlemagne start date.
Most game rules are on standard except for one: Rebels spawn 6x bigger than usual.

I mentioned it before but the primary problem with this is it is somewhat random (based off revolt risk.)

The most important issue is that it obliterates small realms at a much greater frequency than large ones.

I think vassals should become much more likely to faction and generally conspire against the throne once a state has grown stronger than any of its neighbors.

I think a good threshold for more ambitious vassals would start at Archdukes. Dukes holding enough land for multiple duchies.

King vassals would be especially active in factions. After all, they're a king.

Larger realms will eventually have to form these due to vassal limits (if this mechanic still exists in CK3.)

 

[Avian Overlord]

The internal wars provide opportunity but the reasons for these wars does not. Many AI blobs would be considered "unruleable" due to how many such factions there has been but does it make them more vulnerable for my attacks? Nope.

CKIII does have something for that. Factions which successfully put their claimant on the throne will give every member a hook on the ruler, which will tend typically be used to reduce their vassal contract. This then weakens that realm in comparison to other realms.

 

[pengoyo]

I feel like something that would help with players being more okay with their realms declining is having more say in how it declines. So while your weak ruler can't keep everything running smoothly giving them the ability to influence whether the realm splits up, vassals get advantageous contracts, a clamaint being put on the throne, etc could make players more okay with the setback as they can choose the set back they most enjoy. Essentially allowing the player to influence what challenges they need to over come to get back on top.

Now this is technically possible in CK2, but it isn't very well communicated to the player. Besides making the affects of these choices clearer, I think CK3 could also include these in the tutorial.
Including it in the tutorial would also help normalize accepting setback and reframes it for the player as setting up future game play.

 

[Faerillis]

So we obviously don't know how the game will pan out at this point. Too many unknowns in AI weighting and such but we do know of a few things that will help on this front over CK2.

First is the stress system. This soft enforcement/encouragement to roleplay means you're likely to face more situations where your characters won't be in a great state to meaningfully expand. If the stress system is at all tied to conquest alongside administration, you may find that you'll have rulers who are really good at actively expanding but terrible at peacetime management and those who are absolutely terrible for expansion but great at strengthening the realm internally. The consequence for either going against those strengths is various levels of stress or even terribly destabilizing insanity.

The second system is the new Holy War system. Holy Wars now actively harm you specific religion and would see people dealing with constant heresies for their efforts. Holy Wars are currently such a huge part of why people are able to blob as much as they do and still have it be stable, as it gives you too many opportunities to put people of your faith and your culture in control of foreign lands without much penalty.

Third is possibly/hopefully the new Culture/Cultural Innovations setup. Certain cultures may end up far more likely to rebel and far more powerfully. We don't know that this will be used this way for certain yet though.

Game rules, restructured regencies and all manner of similar things could certainly add to these but they are a start.

 

[prithupaul]

It should be organic, based on how large empires were effected and destabilised in history.

What they should not do is to assume every player does min-maxing, and introduce some nonsensical gamified mechanics and arbitrary restrictions that get in the way of organic historical role-playing. They ruined many aspects of CK2 over the years with this nonsense. I dearly hope it is not repeated for CK3.

 

[satoru]

So yeah 1) They're always going to think the computer is cheating.

2) if by rubberbanding meaning they snap back to old borders after expanding, that's pretty natural.

Rubberbanding is both pulling the player back, or pushing other players forward.

A fall of an empire looks a lot like rubberbanding. The game actively 'pulling you back' to make you on par with other players. You keep 'saying' this is natural. Yet most players never perceive it this way. saying something is natural, doesnt mean players perceive it as such. Its sure as hell not 'natural' you can marry a horse or like literally any of the other hundreds of "CK2 taken out of context" posts on reddit.

it might be 'natural' for empires to fall, but games by and large dont do falls for a reason. players dont believe its natural for the game to do that.

3) if they don't do proper management, of course they screwed up.

Again how does the game communicate that "you didn't actually screw up your downward progress is a natural progression of the game". Because this looks incredibly similar to "you screwed up". The point is, players almost never perceive a fall as normal since its fundamentally indistinguishable from you screwing up. Thats the problem.

You let them know it's happening to the AI just as frequently.

Allow me to point out that I literally spent years telling people that RNGs are not cheating in the Darkest Dungeon. The game very clearly showed the 'same thing' happening ot the AI, but what players THOUGHT was

Player does 3 crits in a row - I am Sun Tsu incarnate! My strategy, skills, and management of my roster and town allowed me to get these 3 crits. I am a literal god.
AI does 3 crits in a row - OMFG COMPUTER CHEATS WTF FIX YOUR CODE

Its pretty clear that 'the same thing' happens to the AI, but again players dont actually perceive that as 'happening to the AI' they think of it as "I did this to the AI". They thought the 3 crits was not "RNG loves me" but "My skill as player made that happen". Despite the fact that it was literally RNG. Things that happen to the AI are not 'systems' but are perceived as player agency causing it. But same things happening to the player, are perceived as the AI 'doing stuff to them'

Its difficult to communicate that the RNG is actually RNG. Players never actually thought that way when it happened to them, they thought the game was cheating. If it happened to the AI, they never attributed it to the RNG, they attributed it ot their own 'skill'

You have the same perceptual issues here. If you cause empires to fall, without very very clear mechanisms as to why that's the case, people will simply reload the game thinking they can avoid it, if they cant they're going to wonder why.

There are plenty of solutions to blobbing

The problem is more that does the player perceive those solutions as actual solutions, or "the AI is definitely cheating"

 

[monsterfurby]

The only games I can think of that have managed so far to make a state of seeing one's progress crumble fun are Dwarf Fortress and Rimworld, to the point that the DF Wiki equates "losing" and "fun". I totally agree that empires should be more stable and that there should be a cycle of collapse and consolidation, but in order to make it less frustrating, it should be interesting to watch. In CK2, while interesting things certainly happen, it's hard for the player to spot the dominoes falling. If the chain of events that leads to collapse is communicated more clearly and happened more dynamically, I can see even the player's empire collapsing being "fun".

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Rubberbanding is both pulling the player back, or pushing other players forward.

A fall of an empire looks a lot like rubberbanding. The game actively 'pulling you back' to make you on par with other players. You keep 'saying' this is natural. Yet most players never perceive it this way. saying something is natural, doesnt mean players perceive it as such. Its sure as hell not 'natural' you can marry a horse or like literally any of the other hundreds of "CK2 taken out of context" posts on reddit.

it might be 'natural' for empires to fall, but games by and large dont do falls for a reason. players dont believe its natural for the game to do that.

Yes, it's why we can't have nice, natural gameplay, and need awfully contrived ones like Mana.

That's something that can be taught however, much like the surge in popularity of roguelikes a couple years back.

Again how does the game communicate that "you didn't actually screw up your downward progress is a natural progression of the game". Because this looks incredibly similar to "you screwed up". The point is, players almost never perceive a fall as normal since its fundamentally indistinguishable from you screwing up. Thats the problem.

You can see the faction risk. In CK2 declaring a moderately lengthy war (one that takes say, a decade) at even 80% risk is a danger, let alone declaring any at all while at 130% risk.

Allow me to point out that I literally spent years telling people that RNGs are not cheating in the Darkest Dungeon. The game very clearly showed the 'same thing' happening ot the AI, but what players THOUGHT was

Player does 3 crits in a row - I am Sun Tsu incarnate! My strategy, skills, and management of my roster and town allowed me to get these 3 crits. I am a literal god.
AI does 3 crits in a row - OMFG COMPUTER CHEATS WTF FIX YOUR CODE

Its pretty clear that 'the same thing' happens to the AI, but again players dont actually perceive that as 'happening to the AI' they think of it as "I did this to the AI". They thought the 3 crits was not "RNG loves me" but "My skill as player made that happen". Despite the fact that it was literally RNG. Things that happen to the AI are not 'systems' but are perceived as player agency causing it. But same things happening to the player, are perceived as the AI 'doing stuff to them'

Its difficult to communicate that the RNG is actually RNG. Players never actually thought that way when it happened to them, they thought the game was cheating. If it happened to the AI, they never attributed it to the RNG, they attributed it ot their own 'skill'

You have the same perceptual issues here. If you cause empires to fall, without very very clear mechanisms as to why that's the case, people will simply reload the game thinking they can avoid it, if they cant they're going to wonder why.

There are plenty of solutions to blobbing

The problem is more that does the player perceive those solutions as actual solutions, or "the AI is definitely cheating"

I am well aware of RNG and percentages. I've played games with hitrates where a 30% hitrate is too high.

They can reset it all they want. 130% faction threat would still be up there staring them in the face.

If they go back to an earlier save to stave that off rather than going on an expansionist war (that pissed off the vassals into that 130% state) then good. Less blobbing.

If they insist on fighting the revolt, good. Less blobbing in the meantime.

If they lose, good. Realm fractures or grows more decentralized. Facilitating a return of regional rivals or less chances to blob, respectively.

In the meantime the player has legitimate concerns to handle outside blobbing, whether it be managing vassals.

Fighting internal threats in a revolt. Something to do for "roleplayers," since apparently roleplayers don't blob, but have fun internally.

Picking up the pieces should they lose and are small again.

 

[sstabeler]

I think the fundamental point is that while there is no inherent problem making larger realms fall apart, it really needs to be via a mechanic that actually makes sense to the player. For example, in actual history, one of the reasons why plundering a defeated settlement was common was that the plunder was part of the reward for the vassals and soldiers for responding to the call to arms. However, understandably this pissed off the inhabitants of defeated settlements. Hence if you made the Opinion mechanic more important- that is, characters with a low opinion of each other tend to scheme against each other, which can undermine your authority- it would help avoid blobbing while also being understandable to the player. It also means that charismatic ruler can more easily keep a lid on their squabbling vassals, which is also historically accurate.

Another possibility is that as you get more and more vassals, it becomes harder to keep each vassal content with their power in your court. However, just appointing a higher-tier vassal doesn't make the problem go away since vassals would not be entirely happy about the loss of influence. Hence appointing someone a Duke over ambitious Counts can potentially go wrong if that duke isn't able to win his Counts over.

EDIT- it also would mean you could have a game rule that allowed you to, for want of a better word, tune the difficulty to your own taste. Thus meaning that people who want vassals that are largely compliant can have them, while those that want vassals that are up in arms at the slightest provocation (memetic GoT, in other words) can also have that.

 

[Vanhal]

There's also the problem of player vs AI. If mechanics are the same, something that will bring down the kind of players that are complaining about blobbing will absolutely obliterate every AI realm above single counties (and most players too actually).
And if they are not, it's just "well shit, reload, AI cheats".

 

[vandevere]

There's also the problem of player vs AI. If mechanics are the same, something that will bring down the kind of players that are complaining about blobbing will absolutely obliterate every AI realm above single counties (and most players too actually).
And if they are not, it's just "well shit, reload, AI cheats".

That's why a Robust Game Rules is the best answer here. Is it going to be a perfect answer? No. But nothing is ever going to be perfect. But the Game Rules have a better chance of making an adjustable experience for all players, as opposed to ham-fisted Global Nerfs coring gameplay for everyone, regardless of play style.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

That's why a Robust Game Rules is the best answer here. Is it going to be a perfect answer? No. But nothing is ever going to be perfect. But the Game Rules have a better chance of making an adjustable experience for all players, as opposed to ham-fisted Global Nerfs coring gameplay for everyone, regardless of play style.

Thing is factions should be factored in base gameplay regardless of playstyle.

If you're small you can handle the weaker vassals relative to yourself anyways.

If you're large and "roleplaying" you'd be focusing on internal management anyways.

If you're "roleplaying" a great conquerer spree you should then also experience the consequences of such actions. The part where they involuntarily fractured a generation or two after conquest. Not some garbage "trust me, I'm going to fracture" honor system.

That "honor system" is how we got these convoluted mechanics like mana and pacts to begin with, as developers try to find ways to keep us entertained with less and less of the map to work with.

 

[sstabeler]

Thing is factions should be factored in base gameplay regardless of playstyle.

If you're small you can handle the weaker vassals relative to yourself anyways.

If you're large and "roleplaying" you'd be focusing on internal management anyways.

If you're "roleplaying" a great conquerer spree you should then also experience the consequences of such actions. The part where they involuntarily fractured a generation or two after conquest. Not some garbage "trust me, I'm going to fracture" honor system.

That "honor system" is how we got these convoluted mechanics like mana and pacts to begin with, as developers try to find ways to keep us entertained with challenges.

I think you're missing the point.Which is that a lot of the time, mechanics to limit blobbing end up somewhat hamfisted, like tying revolt risk to realm size directly. Which means that past a certain size, it inevitably breaks up even if you are literally beloved by every single person in the world. Which ends up only being fun for those that like fighting constantly to keep everything together.

Essentially, the point is that well-planned game rules can be used to customise the challenge you face. So, for example, a powergamer can set the rules so that you are more-or-less simulating a world where it's almost impossible to keep everyone happy. Wheras someone else who is interested in a different challenge can set things so that factions are more tolerant.I

it's why I suggested Opinion as the controlling variable. It makes it easy for the player to see why their vassals are revolting and is comparatively easy to tune through adjusting the specifics of the effect of Opinion on revolt risk. Wheras a direct Realm Size-> Revolt Risk mechanic would be harder to balance against other mechanics.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I think you're missing the point.Which is that a lot of the time, mechanics to limit blobbing end up somewhat hamfisted, like tying revolt risk to realm size directly. Which means that past a certain size, it inevitably breaks up even if you are literally beloved by every single person in the world. Which ends up only being fun for those that like fighting constantly to keep everything together.

Essentially, the point is that well-planned game rules can be used to customise the challenge you face. So, for example, a powergamer can set the rules so that you are more-or-less simulating a world where it's almost impossible to keep everyone happy. Wheras someone else who is interested in a different challenge can set things so that factions are more tolerant.I

it's why I suggested Opinion as the controlling variable. It makes it easy for the player to see why their vassals are revolting and is comparatively easy to tune through adjusting the specifics of the effect of Opinion on revolt risk. Wheras a direct Realm Size-> Revolt Risk mechanic would be harder to balance against other mechanics.

I was under the impression we all understood this was about the opinion of vassals.

Faction risk and all of that are tied to vassal opinions. They don't like you enough, they join factions. You do things they don't like, like continuously drain their resources on a foreign expedition, and they're increasingly likely to join factions.

I am more for getting a more standard approach that works for everyone, just not the blobbing "roleplayers." Those that blob and just Promise to break up voluntarily afterwards. swear to god honor system. They're the reason why we have "mana", pacts, and other nonsense in the game. We really don't need any of those if internal challenges are actually that. A challenge.

 

[sstabeler]

I was under the impression we all understood this was about the opinion of vassals.

Faction risk and all of that are tied to vassal opinions. They don't like you enough, they join factions. You do things they don't like, like continuously drain their resources on a foreign expedition, and they're increasingly likely to join factions.

I am more for getting a more standard approach that works for everyone, just not the blobbing "roleplayers." Those that blob and just Promise to break up voluntarily afterwards. swear to god honor system. They're the reason why we have "mana", pacts, and other nonsense in the game. We really don't need any of those if internal challenges are actually that. A challenge.

I think we're arguing for the same thing, it's just that you're concentrating on a different part of it than I am. What I was thinking of is a system where as the realm gets larger, your vassals get harder to keep content, it's just that the rate it gets harder can be adjusted to make the game easier or more difficult. What you seem to be thinking of is simply making it harder to satisfy a faction. Which is perfectly fine- making factions non-toothless is a good idea. But the problem comes when you assume every player is a powergamer.

EDIT- To clarify, what my concerns are is that it's very easy for mechanics intended to either slow down or prevent blobbing to also outright lock out a "wide" playstyle. Hence why I dislike mechanics that inevitably force a large realm to break up, as opposed to something that the player can do something about. However, there is also the fact that how difficult it is to do something about internal issues is a good place for the difficulty of the game to be adjustable for a newer player to get an easier challenge. However, within limits forcing a player to actually uphold their promises is fine, I'd probably go for opinion maluses for breaking your promises though. (A major one for whoever you made the promise to, a minor one generally. The idea is that if you constantly break your promises, nobody will trust you. However, equally one broken promise isn't enough. So yes, the penalties would stack.)

 

[Arkangelus]

I posted on a previous thread that a good natural way to help with this could be to limit the scaling of who is considered a 'powerful vassal' relative to a fixed set of council positions and privileges. If every Duke in the realm expects to be treated as a trusted advisor, you'll be mostly ok playing as a smaller kingdom, but have to put out more and more fires keeping them all happy as you expand.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I posted on a previous thread that a good natural way to help with this could be to limit the scaling of who is considered a 'powerful vassal' relative to a fixed set of council positions and privileges. If every Duke in the realm expects to be treated as a trusted advisor, you'll be mostly ok playing as a smaller kingdom, but have to put out more and more fires keeping them all happy as you expand.

That's what I would suggest too.

I would add an additional rule though as there is a way to trivialize vassal management. You can just make one or two vassals huge and focus on keeping them happy. Then it doesn't matter what the rest think when those two to three vassals hold 40% of the realm. 60% including you.

It's a CK2 issue also.

It's why I added suggestions that multi dukes and kings should have an additional modifier that opens up their incentives to faction. After all, they're kings.

And larger realms will eventually have to make some of these eventually due to vassal limits.