I don't understand the attitude of this forum

[IdiotsOpposite]

It's confusing to me. On the one hand, you seem to enjoy difficulty, to thrive on it even. Your favorite nations are Byzantium, Albania, Yaroslavl and Tabarestan. You ridicule people who choose to play Castile over Navarra, Austria over Nassau, or Muscovy over Tver. I see replies on a regular basis along the lines of "why bother playing a nation where you've won the game from day 1" in response to people playing a game as France, or England. And yet, despite all this thriving on difficulty, almost seeming to enjoy when the game is as hard as possible...

You complain when Paradox makes the game harder. You cry out in sorrow when doing a one-tag WC as Muisca doesn't seem possible anymore. You yell when they make expansion more difficult, despite seeking out the most difficult nations to expand with in the first place. I quite honestly don't get it. Do you want the game to be difficult or not?

 

[quieti]

Since when do people actually know what they want?

 

[lokiey0000000]

More than anything else, people want something to bitch about.

 

[IIWW]

I want different difficulty levels. If everything is hard, it's bad. If playing France is super easy, and playing Muisca is super hard, it's good.

 

[Runite]

Yaroslavl and Tabarestan are some very well built nations you know!!!

 

[Draculdraconis]

Since when do people actually know what they want?

That is the Point, Sir/Lady/Other, nobody knows exatly what they want, but since there is change and Humen don't like change they'll complain regardless

 

[Wizzington]

In the vast majority of cases, backlash to a balance and gameplay changes is actually just complaining about change, in itself. 1.12 changed a lot of things, and it's to be expected that the complaints would be more loud than usual and that they would mainly target easily articulated topics such as the increased coring costs. You'll notice the vast majority of complaining about it has died down now that people are used to the new rules and the rhetoric being thrown around like 'it is now completely impossible to expand' didn't exactly turn out to match reality.

This has happened with every major patch, will continue to happen with every major patch, and we usually manage to find some valid feedback among all the yelling.

 

[Krajzen]

Since when do people actually know what they want?

Since when thousands of people all have the same opinions?

 

[Draculdraconis]

In the vast majority of cases, backlash to a balance and gameplay changes is actually just complaining about change, in itself.

ninjad Wiz ^^

 

[Xara]

You're confusing difficulty with speed.

Imagine you're on a road trip, sightseeing from point A to point B, but once you get about 100 miles away from point B you're in your hometown with nothing unfamiliar to check out and you just get bored and finish things up.

A more difficult nation starts at a further point A. There's more to see and more to do because you have further to go.

Paradox nerfing expansion again and again and again? That's not increasing the distance of the trip, it's setting your car to go half the speed limit.

The game would not provide twice the fun if it took twice as long to play. Nerfs to conquest don't add peacetime gameplay.

 

[Zqrfmb]

Answer to the OP's post: People are weird.
*drops mic, walks off stage*

 

[Wizzington]

You're confusing difficulty with speed.

Imagine you're on a road trip, sightseeing from point A to point B, but once you get about 100 miles away from point B you're in your hometown with nothing unfamiliar to check out and you just get bored and finish things up.

A more difficult nation starts at a further point A. There's more to see and more to do because you have further to go.

Paradox nerfing expansion again and again and again? That's not increasing the distance of the trip, it's setting your car to go half the speed limit.

The game would not provide twice the fun if it took twice as long to play. Nerfs to conquest don't add peacetime gameplay.

So if we removed AE and made coring free and instant, the game wouldn't become easier? That's a silly and far too narrow definition of difficulty. If anything, difficulty in games is precisely about the time it takes to do things - Dark Souls is difficult because you have to spend a large amount of time learning and dying to complete its encounters.

 

[Grand Historian]

Some outcry is valid. Some is just elitists being elitists. Some is just people making assumptions before even seeing how something works.

 

[bzflater]

So if we removed AE and made coring free and instant, the game wouldn't become easier? That's a silly and far too narrow definition of difficulty. If anything, difficulty in games is precisely about the time it takes to do things - Dark Souls is difficult because you have to spend a large amount of time learning and dying to complete its encounters.

Removing AE and making coring cheaper are two very different things.
AE is a real obstacle that makes sense and must be played around, I love it.
But coring as in EU4 is just a boring and tedious process that's just there to annoy the player. EU3-style coring was much, much better IMO.

 

[Grand Historian]

Removing AE and making coring cheaper are two very different things.
AE is a real obstacle that makes sense and must be played around, I love it.
But coring as in EU4 is just a boring and tedious process that's just there to annoy the player. EU3-style coring was much, much better IMO.

Except it was forgettable, an even bigger hindrance, and there was no way to directly effect it either which resulted in the former two, and made expanding as a small nation a pain. A fusion of core aspects from both 4 and 3 would be a good solution, methinks.

 

[Wizzington]

Removing AE and making coring cheaper are two very different things.
AE is a real obstacle that makes sense and must be played around, I love it.
But coring as in EU4 is just a boring and tedious process that's just there to annoy the player. EU3-style coring was much, much better IMO.

Coring adds difficulty because it requires tradeoffs between expanding your territory and other things such as tech and ideas, much like for example tradeoffs in skill builds adds difficulty in an RPG. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it anymore 'fake' difficulty than AE.

 

[Dakilla TM]

There are lots of legitimate complaints from changes in each patch. Remember 1.6 and how ridiculous AE was? Or how the nationalism modifier was added and rebels popped up like gophers?

Yeah, I remember, and after venting, I'd usually mod the game myself the way I see fit. And it works.

Same with the recent patch, as I wasn't a fan of the high coring costs. I modded it back to previous levels and now I'm fine.


You can't just dismiss the rants as rabble and ignore it. Some changes are good, others not so much.


And to OP, everyone has different ways of playing. Some of them are more tolerant when it comes to playstyles, other not so much. Go figure, it's the internet.

 

[SolSys]

...

Nothing to say on topic, just:
@Wiz , please tell me that you are replying to this posts from home. I appreciate the hard and long work, but take a breather every now and then (at the very least - at night).
I promise I'll buy the new expansion later on

 

[bzflater]

Coring adds difficulty because it requires tradeoffs between expanding your territory and other things such as tech and ideas. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it anymore 'fake' difficulty than AE.

I think that a big problem is that way too many things are tied to a resource that is random in nature. I get having some things tied to that, but it makes little sense that, for example, you have to choose between province development and technological advancement as they went hand-in-hand IRL.
It doesn't make much sense from a fluff perspective, it's random and way too many things depend on it. At least some of the uses of Monarch Points should be switched to use gold (or just a lot of time) instead, I think.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

It's confusing to me. On the one hand, you seem to enjoy difficulty, to thrive on it even. Your favorite nations are Byzantium, Albania, Yaroslavl and Tabarestan. You ridicule people who choose to play Castile over Navarra, Austria over Nassau, or Muscovy over Tver. I see replies on a regular basis along the lines of "why bother playing a nation where you've won the game from day 1" in response to people playing a game as France, or England. And yet, despite all this thriving on difficulty, almost seeming to enjoy when the game is as hard as possible...

You complain when Paradox makes the game harder. You cry out in sorrow when doing a one-tag WC as Muisca doesn't seem possible anymore. You yell when they make expansion more difficult, despite seeking out the most difficult nations to expand with in the first place. I quite honestly don't get it. Do you want the game to be difficult or not?

Here's a thought for you: THE GAME HAS DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS WITH DIFFERENT DESIRES.