I don't understand the attitude of this forum

[PiriReis]

Complaining about people who complain

 

[keynes2.0]

Complaining about people who complain

We fight about fighting about fighting!

 

[awelltrainedfer]

Squeaky wheel gets the oil. If you don't point out mistakes LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY, they don't get fixed.

 

[eon47]

Squeaky wheel gets the oil. If you don't point out mistakes LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY, they don't get fixed.

And that's why Memel was fixed quickly and hordes now have a slew of new gameplay features.

 

[Azieloki]

I don't necessarily mean literal rerolls -- I'm talking about an abstract design philosophy of giving players tools to deal with bad luck. Not controlling the outcomes of dice rolls themselves (RNG should have an impact on the game, as you say), but being able to control the impact of these "dice" through smart decision-making.

If the RNG deals me a 0-year old 1/1/2 and then kills my ruler, whatever -- stuff like that happened in history, and it could make for an interesting 30 years. But I not only have no control over that outcome, but no control over the *impact* of that outcome. I can't declare war. My MP gain is going to stall for 50 or so years so there aren't many buttons I can press apart from "Speed +". Rather than bad luck being an opportunity to test my skill, I'm left twiddling my thumbs.

I know the "thumb twiddling" imagery is heavily dramatized on this forum, but there's a lot of truth to it. The entire monarch system should be a proving ground for players, but instead it's just the house rolling dice without player interaction.

I would say to Wiz that his arguments in favor of monarchs and monarch power are solid, but my argument doesn't exclude the monarch power system. I love RNG; I hate RNG that I can't affect the impact of via good strategy.

This is pretty spot on. I can adapt to any changes made to the game, even if I don't like them at first. But with the monarch system everything is just thrown at you with no influence on your part, outside of a few rare events. I can appreciate if they want to make the monarch point influence a mechanic for republics, but that doesn't mean having a monarchy should be so unengaging, especially since it's so hard to become a republic. I don't think the role of RNG in the game is bad, it's certainly very important. But giving it the ability to leave you with nothing to do but watch the game run on speed 5 is terrible.

Having a bad leader is bad because it only affects monarch point generation. If it resulted in unique gameplay challenges I think it could actually be interesting. But as of now all it does is slow your MP generation. It oversimplifies the issue of having an ineffective leader down so much that it holds back gameplay. Hopefully monarchies get fleshed out more in the future.

 

[keynes2.0]

Having a bad leader is bad because it only affects monarch point generation. If it resulted in unique gameplay challenges I think it could actually be interesting. But as of now all it does is slow your MP generation. It oversimplifies the issue of having an ineffective leader down so much that it holds back gameplay. Hopefully monarchies get fleshed out more in the future.

"Oh no the king is dead! Our realm will suffer without his leadership!" -> Challenge that makes it harder to win
"Oh damn, the king is dead! Now we will only annex 2 provinces instead of five." ->Not a challenge, just an arbitrary random factor on the size of your gains

 

[highsis]

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?

There are some generalizations here. Those who welcome the difficulty increase are often different from those who cry about it, or at least so I hope because I don't want to assume people are that capricious.

My first game ever in EU4 was as Navara which I made into a gigantic empire without reloading. I always play an OPM and quit when I can crush a coalition including France which can be done in about 150 years. I've never complained about difficulty increase in the past but I cry every time something is made easier.

I really think playing any major nation is no fun at all. With the game's difficulty you are virtually unstoppable after 2~3 wars with other major nations(which you win 99%). I won't be satisfied until the game achieves Magna Mundi the mod level difficulty in EU3 HTTT; that is the right difficulty for any strategy games with replayability.

 

[highsis]

lol Wiz has dueled with so many people in this thread. It was a fun read.

 

[PeterCorless]

What I loathe personally is the "needlessly punitive" being compared to "difficult."

It's one thing to have big neighboring nations all in an alliance with a few of them your rivals, or having a coalition form against you, and then having to navigate your way out via a combination of incredible statecraft and cunning military strategy. It's another thing to just have a lot of stab hits followed by rebels then hah-hah -- regency! The game should not just be lol'ing at you.

I tend not to play Ironman simply because there are a lot of "nuisance" events. Events that cost more than your annual marginal profits by many multiples. Rebel events that overwhelm your entire national army. It's one thing to be "challenged." It's another thing to simply be a masochistic RNG punching bag.

 

[bbqftw]

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.

to be fair you have to go through some rather extreme hoops if you're in the ROTW (like taking seriously suboptimal idea groups) to play republics, or rely on certain idea group-associated RNG...

Sure, but that's you personally. Take a trip around this forum or any forum talking about EU4, and watch how many words and how much emotion people put into stories about bad rulers living forever, mocking Enrique and Henry VI, making jokes about hunting accidents when someone gets a 5/5/5 heir, etc. Many players don't realize just how much they actually 'enjoy' getting occasionally screwed by the RNG.

Is there any gameplay justification behind regency lockout, as in punishment for incorrect play? I can see it as a penalty for playing ridiculously aggressive with your heirs (making them generals), but given the fairly high incidence of heir death, it doesn't even seem like stacking heir chance even helps to offset chance of regency.

 

[lordtidus12]

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?

there is a difference between making a game more difficult and making a game less fun. people think that the least popular unexplained balance change (increasing coring costs) slows the game down (going at speed 5 waiting for admin/diplo points) without making it more interesting.

 

[Ratlegion]

Attn Wiz:

Thanks for your time. Our relationship hasn't always been easy, but I respect your efforts and I'm really looking forward to trying 1.13. To see your open conversation I'm sure goes along way to proving to many besides just myself that you do indeed care about the community.

 

[Titanius Puffin]

Wiz, it almost sounds like you're honestly offended by the "mana" nickname for Monarch Points. Are you? Because you need not to This is a damn good game, it got a whole load better in 1.12, and I'm really anxious to get my hands on 1.13. But...well, I'm still thinking of those three integer-type variables as "mana". Sorry, the name just...stucks in the head, being short and simple. I think you don't need to take a Diplomatic Insult CB against people using it.

I'm with Wiz on this. Calling Monarch Points 'mana' (without irony) puts a dumb name on a resonably intelligent concept.

It is, roughly speaking, correct that different rulers through the ages had varying abilities in different areas. They worked away on various projects that they thought important - often in areas they were talented in. The culmination of such a project is represented in game by 'spending' a large number of saved monarch points. (Technically, it might be better for every project to 'tax' monarch point generation rather than having a lump-sum expenditure at the end, but it's still not a terrible abstraction).

However not all abilities translated well into every domain. For instance, Attila the Hun might have been a great war leader and general, but he wasn't a very good empire and institution builder; he might be 6,3,1 leader - great military ability, poorer administrative skill. His empire broke up after his death (too few 'cores' on conquered territory if we're forced to put it in game terms).

In contrast, Augustus Caesar didn't have any strong military credentials ( esp. compared with Uncle Julius), but he largely ended the Roman civil wars, kept the Empire stable and prosperous, and grafted a hereditary monarchy onto a republic. He was no war leader (he had competent generals who helped him out), but in political and administrative areas he excelled ( a 1,4,5 leader perhaps ?).

Mana in a fantasy game setting doesn't represent much. It is a single number designed to prevent spell-casters from being over powered. Some classic fantasy games (and some modern ones) don't use mana at all, but instead just impose a limit per day on the number (and type) of spells being cast, or they use cool down timers. In fantasy games 'Mana' is a disposable mechanic, which hints at how clever the idea is.

EU4 is a fairly impersonal game, but by using three variables to model personality and ability, the game moves a little bit closer to the personality of CK2, while retaining the empire building character. CK2 is, to the best of my knowledge, in inspiration for the mechanic, which introduces a small resource balancing challenge('human resources' if you like) into the game. I've played EU4 without monarch points, more or less; it's called EU3, and it's not as interesting.

In EU3 money behaves a little like mana - you generate more of this resource as you accomplish more, which allows you to accomplish even more. There is only one type of this resource and it's generation is something you begin to take for granted (a bit like an OP sorceress in Diablo II).

That said, if you want to call monarch points 'mana', no one can stop you. I would like to persuade you otherwise, though.

 

[bzflater]

But CK2 ruler mechanics were much, much more enjoyable and CK2 doesn't have anything remotely similar to mana. The single most important resource there is gold with prestige and piety being behind it.

 

[Titanius Puffin]

But CK2 ruler mechanics were much, much more enjoyable and CK2 doesn't have anything remotely similar to mana. The single most important resource there is gold with prestige and piety being behind it.

Yep CK2 has no Mana...
I wanted to point out that monarch points aren't mana.

 

[Reverend Belial]

As others have said, it's not the same people complaining. The people who eat difficulty (or tedium) probably rejoice after something gets changed to be more difficult (or tedious), and complain when it's changed to be easier (or less tedious). The people who enjoy more casual experiences (or spending more than a third of their time actually playing the game) rejoice after something is made easier (or less tedious, or more engaging), and complain when something is made more difficult (or... You get the point).

And on the other topic that seems to be prevalant on the thread; while Monarch Points (I hate the system and the whole "mana" thing even annoys me) certainly have some historical precedent too many things are all tied to each category, most of which are completely illogical both in being tied to ruler ability and to excluding one another due to their cost. An excellent example is province development and technological advancement. Or really anything and technological advancement. Did Rome stagnate while they expanded? Really has anyone? Most empires stagnated during periods of extended peace or weak leadership. If they were strong enough to take land, they were most often capable enough to advance too. The same goes with military leaders. When has anybody in history said "Well, we research new guns or we can hire a guy to lead our troops?". Nobody, except for the people who play this game.

 

[Titanius Puffin]

When has anybody in history said "Well, we research new guns or we can hire a guy to lead our troops?". Nobody, except for the people who play this game.

Going through the process of hiring someone takes time and effort from the person/people doing the hiring, particularly if it is a prestigious position merely because everyone either wants the post, or has opinions on who should get it.

Implementing technical/social reforms also consumes time and effort - potentially a lot more from those driving the change.

I get that you're not exactly sold on the monarch point mechanic though.

EU4 tends to reflect a 'great man' (or great woman in some cases) view of history which suggests that a few powerful individuals had an outsized impact on the world. But It's not the only way of looking at history. Perhaps you prefer a more 'bottom up' view of history that focuses on culture, institutions, and environment?

 

[Reverend Belial]

Going through the process of hiring someone takes time and effort from the person/people doing the hiring, particularly if it is a prestigious position merely because everyone either wants the post, or has opinions on who should get it.

Implementing technical/social reforms also consumes time and effort - potentially a lot more from those driving the change.

I get that you're not exactly sold on the monarch point mechanic though.

EU4 tends to reflect a 'great man' (or great woman in some cases) view of history which suggests that a few powerful individuals had an outsized impact on the world. But It's not the only way of looking at history. Perhaps you prefer a more 'bottom up' view of history that focuses on culture, institutions, and environment?

Sure. I'm cool with things taking time and money, or being complex or whatever. All I want is for things to make sense. Right now it absolutely does not make sense.

 

[bzflater]

Going through the process of hiring someone takes time and effort from the person/people doing the hiring, particularly if it is a prestigious position merely because everyone either wants the post, or has opinions on who should get it.

Implementing technical/social reforms also consumes time and effort - potentially a lot more from those driving the change.

I get that you're not exactly sold on the monarch point mechanic though.

EU4 tends to reflect a 'great man' (or great woman in some cases) view of history which suggests that a few powerful individuals had an outsized impact on the world. But It's not the only way of looking at history. Perhaps you prefer a more 'bottom up' view of history that focuses on culture, institutions, and environment?

The game assumes that technological research was mostly done by the ruler and that development occurred via decrees from the ruler saying "I demand ye to be richer". That's dubious to say the least.
In case you don't remember the EU3 system here's how it worked:
The ruler had a constant rate of points generation depending on their stats that got instantly invested into the five technologies and stability. But those numbers were nearly negligible if you played as anything larger than an OPM with the more important way of advancement being investing money over time into technological advancement and increasing stability. You could also buy these things something instantly by pressing a special button, but that costed 2x more. Cores were less important because, while they gave the same province modifier (75% tax, etc.), overextension was far less punishing, but, in return, you couldn't just order a province to be cored and had to wait 50 years instead. Cultural genocide wasn't done quickly by a decree of the king backed up with bird mana, but rather required keeping a settlement policy on for that province for decades, which severely strained your nation in several ways until it was complete. I loved that and still think that it was far superior to what we have now in EU4.
Also, your ruler's stats affected a bunch of other things like morale or several diplomatic and administrative parameters, which is kinda nice. Better than the current system.

 

[ChildeR]

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.

I've highlighted the last part, because I wish you spent some more time on the analogue of that for EU4. Not that I've disliked your changes - I think 1.12 was excellent, including the coring/annex changes. However, when I stop losing (whether wars, territory or the game) a campaign is over for me, since it becomes just an exercise in map-painting at that point. That happens too early and losing the game is too rare outside starts where it can happen in the first few decades.