I don't understand the attitude of this forum

[Beagá]

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.

No.

The problem is that you are playing versus the AI and knows what to expect. Specially once you are experienced

ANYTHING that is predictable is boring. And no, it´s a problem in ANY game that is about beating AIs.

There is reason why the most played games aren´t comp stomp. just sayin´

 

[petertel123]

Did it occur to you that not everyone has the same opinion and you might be speaking about 2 different groups of people?

 

[Wizzington]

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.

There will always be people who do not get used to the new changes, but that doesn't mean the changes were bad - you will never have 100% of pplayers agree on anything. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of players do not mod their game or go back to an old version, though. Most of them complain for a while and then adjust.

Of course, in some cases complaints are 'legitimate' insofar that more than a handful of players continue to feel that a change has made the game worse. You can usually tell because those are the complaints that persist and find agreement internally in the dev team. Nowadays, we tend to catch such changes before release because we have more testing resources.

 

[IIWW]

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.

Well, Your example also isn't good. If in DS a boss would be just a box with 10000 HP, it would make the game loger, but not more difficult.
The problem with difficulty is the AI. Human will always be smarter, but 1.12 was terrible. Hotfix fixed it, granted a big congrats for quick reaction, but in itself 1.12 made coring extremly expensive, and AI which DoWed the player not taking his allies into account. The coring cost cost doesn't change the fact that conquest is still very easy.
And a trade-off? that's just a matter of few in-game decades to get adjusted to it. The increase of difficulty caused by this is very short living. The decrease of speed of playing is long lasting.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

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.

That's a good answer (and matches what I had already understood to be EU4's design philosophy), but I think we'll ultimately need more hands-on management of our countries' economies and politics in order to make peaceful games as exciting as aggressive ones.

 

[Xara]

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.

No, it wouldn't be easier or harder. It would simply be faster.

Managing alliances, income, and manpower in the course of conducting wars is the challenge the game provides.

Double the length of truce timers, triple the cost of coring, quadruple the time it takes to core something - none of that makes the game harder, it just makes it take longer. Taking longer to do the exact same thing does not increase the fun involved. People would not call the game "innovative and exciting!" if you made truce timers last 100 years, they would just be bored out of their @#$#@ minds. Just like they would be if you made every minion and npc in a dark souls game have 100x the hp.

 

[RELee]

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

Huh! Really? I thought everyone was as purty and entaillekchewal as me'uns.

Eh. What do I know? I've been playing HOI3 non-stop for a while now.

 

[RobRoy3]

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

Yeah. There's no single forum response to these things. It might SEEM like the apparent consensus around a particular issue is inconsistent with the apparent consensu around another issue. But a) there is rarely any actual consensus; and b) someone might be quite vocal about a particular issue that they care about, but yield the floor regarding an issue where they couldn't care less.

 

[Wizzington]

No, it wouldn't be easier or harder. It would simply be faster.

Managing alliances, income, and manpower in the course of conducting wars is the challenge the game provides.

Double the length of truce timers, triple the cost of coring, quadruple the time it takes to core something - none of that makes the game harder, it just makes it take longer. Taking longer to do the exact same thing does not increase the fun involved. People would not call the game "innovative and exciting!" if you made truce timers last 100 years, they would just be bored out of their @#$#@ minds. Just like they would be if you made every minion and npc in a dark souls game have 100x the hp.

I challenge you to play a campaign with the normal rules, then play one with the same nation with instant free coring and no AE. See if you really don't find the second one easier.

Then again, you seem to have invented your own meaning for the word 'difficulty' so who knows what you'd even measure by.

 

[bzflater]

I challenge you to play a campaign with the normal rules, then play one with the same nation with instant free coring and no AE. See if you really don't find the second one easier.

Could you, please, reply in at least some way to my previous post? It's an issue that bothers me a lot and I thus kinda want to hear your opinion on it.

EDIT: minor fixes of this post.

 

[Xara]

I challenge you to play a campaign with the normal rules, then play one with the same nation with instant free coring and no AE. See if you really don't find the second one easier.

Then again, you seem to have invented your own meaning for the word 'difficulty' so who knows what you'd even measure by.

You're still confusing difficulty with speed. The game is not easier or harder if I play on speed 1 versus speed 4.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I challenge you to play a campaign with the normal rules, then play one with the same nation with instant free coring and no AE. See if you really don't find the second one easier.

Then again, you seem to have invented your own meaning for the word 'difficulty' so who knows what you'd even measure by.

Maybe that would make a difference if the player was cautious, but I find that I tend to just twiddle my thumbs a lot while waiting for things to core and truce timers to count down. Is that not how you play? Like, do you expand more aggressively?

 

[Wizzington]

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.

I think the criticism about resource randomness in regards to Monarch Power is to some degree fair, though I also think the randomness adds a certain emotional layer to the flow of the game - you care about your monarchs and your heirs to a much greater degree than you otherwise would. I also think that if the resource randomness *really* bothered people that much, republics would be far more popular than they currently are.

However, even if we were to 'fix' this, the way to do so would not be to make fewer things use MPs as that would pretty much destroy their core design of tradeoffs.

 

[dbruser]

Making expanding more time consuming and limited actually does make the game harder, because the Ai is mostly unaffected, so they have an easier time keeping up with the player which makes the game harder because you don't autowin wars after playing for 50 years. (assuming mslim or better tech)

 

[Beagá]

I think the criticism about resource randomness in regards to Monarch Power is to some degree fair, though I also think the randomness adds a certain emotional layer to the flow of the game - you care about your monarchs and your heirs to a much greater degree than you otherwise would. I also think that if the resource randomness *really* bothered people that much, republics would be far more popular than they currently are.

However, even if we were to 'fix' this, the way to do so would not be to make fewer things use MPs as that would pretty much destroy their core design of tradeoffs.

Any chance to have a dinasty DLC in the future? Nothing CK 2 level, obviously.

 

[bzflater]

I think the criticism about resource randomness in regards to Monarch Power is to some degree fair, though I also think the randomness adds a certain emotional layer to the flow of the game - you care about your monarchs and your heirs to a much greater degree than you otherwise would. I also think that if the resource randomness *really* bothered people that much, republics would be far more popular than they currently are.

However, even if we were to 'fix' this, the way to do so would not be to make fewer things use MPs as that would pretty much destroy their core design of tradeoffs.

They can still provide some trade-offs. I didn't really mind most of their uses before 1.12. But province development in particular bothers me a lot because technological advancement versus development shouldn't be a trade-off in the first place as the countries with the highest wealth per capita were also usually the most technologically advanced ones, therefore making that particular trade-off counter-intuitive.

 

[Grand Historian]

I think the criticism about resource randomness in regards to Monarch Power is to some degree fair, though I also think the randomness adds a certain emotional layer to the flow of the game - you care about your monarchs and your heirs to a much greater degree than you otherwise would. I also think that if the resource randomness *really* bothered people that much, republics would be far more popular than they currently are.

However, even if we were to 'fix' this, the way to do so would not be to make fewer things use MPs as that would pretty much destroy their core design of tradeoffs.

How about expanding rulers? I don't think anyone is really that emotionally attached to their leaders, except feeling frustration when their God-Kings and heirs die unexpectedly and vaguely (fueled by a confirmation bias), especially considering all they are is just a faceless name with an age and a few numbers.

 

[Wizzington]

You're still confusing difficulty with speed. The game is not easier or harder if I play on speed 1 versus speed 4.

What exactly do you think 'difficulty' in an empire builder is? It's how fast you can grow powerful, and how many obstacles impede your progress. The faster you can grow powerful, the easier the game is. This is the accepted meaning of 'difficulty' in EU4 game design and what people are talking about when they say EU4 is an easy or a hard game. The fact that you have invented your own meaning for the word does not oblige anyone else to adopt that meaning.

 

[Wizzington]

They can still provide some trade-offs. I didn't really mind most of their uses before 1.12. But province development in particular bothers me a lot because technological advancement versus development shouldn't be a trade-off in the first place as the countries with the highest wealth per capita were also usually the most technologically advanced ones, therefore making that particular trade-off counter-intuitive.

Realism arguments are meaningless, sorry. You can use realism to argue against or for literally anything.

 

[grommile]

I think the criticism about resource randomness in regards to Monarch Power is to some degree fair, though I also think the randomness adds a certain emotional layer to the flow of the game - you care about your monarchs and your heirs to a much greater degree than you otherwise would.

The only emotion I ever notice regarding my rulers is irritation when I get fed 179 months of agency denial.