I want something more than mana

[Nicolas-]

I:R isn't totally a state based game, characters are present. They could very much have at least some CK2 type stuff present to avoid the constant mana nonsense. There's also a difference between not being guaranteed a competent heir and your heir not changing at all from the moment they're born to when they're a 30 year old adult. If you get a 0/0/0 heir in EU4 you're just boned, if you get a bad heir in CK2 you can try to at least get them a good education to try and salvage things. Randomness is fine but not in massive amounts.

That's what advisors are for in the case of EU4 for example. If your heir is incompetent you can surround him with very competent advisors and it'll help keep things more stable and efficient. It's not like you can't do anything about an incompetent heir in EU4.

I think the issue here all of us are trying to tailor our expectations out of Rome to our favorite game. I understand that you really like CK2 but this isn't really a sequel to it. It's so easy for us to criticize things but if we were to become developers for one day you'll see how hard it is to balance things out and make them interesting. When they're thinking about rulers they have to conceptualize it in a way that works well with Imperator features not CK2. That is why I prefer to respect the discretion of the developers because they're more aware of the overall needs of the current game design than we are.

 

[Gunthah]

Since this is going to be a character heavy game with lots of offices to hold, I don't understand why they're not making actions dependent on the skills of people holding the relevant offices like CKII and instead opted for monarch-generated points that can somehow be saved over time.

This actually seems like it would have been a great route to take. Why would you need an abstraction of government officials' activity when you already have actual government officials with variable skills?

 

[DreadGrunt]

That's what advisors are for in the case of EU4 for example. If your heir is incompetent you can surround him with very competent advisors and it'll help keep things more stable and efficient. It's not like you can't do anything about an incompetent heir in EU4.

I think the issue here all of us are trying to tailor our expectations out of Rome to our favorite game. I understand that you really like CK2 but this isn't really a sequel to it. It's so easy for us to criticize things but if we were to become developers for one day you'll see how hard it is to balance things out and make them interesting. When they're thinking about rulers they have to conceptualize it in a way that works well with Imperator features not CK2. That is why I prefer to respect the discretion of the developers because they're more aware of the overall needs of the current game design than we are.

Oh I don't want I:R to be CK2, I very much want it to be it's own game but there's no reason it can't draw from the good parts of other Pdox products. From the response I'm seeing here and elsewhere with Pdox fans people seems to be largely against mana being shoved into I:R and for good reason imo because it's just not a good system. Ideally it would combine the best parts of all of them with some new innovations but truth be told it just kinda seems like EU (which, to be fair, is pretty much where it started) with a Rome reskin and some basic pops added which is disappointing and has certainly killed some of my hype.

At the end of the day I just want the game to the best possible because I've been waiting for this for years and I'm just venting some of my frustrations I have thus far.

 

[Denkt]

If everyone is against monarch points how have paradox managed to sell so well recently?

Futhermore, how many here work in game development because many of the "solutions" sounds pretty impractical?

 

[DreadGrunt]

If everyone is against monarch points how have paradox managed to sell so well recently?

Fan loyalty. I was totally opposed to the 2.0 changes in Stellaris but I still bought Apocalypse and at least gave it a try before I shelved the game because I like Paradox.

 

[AzorApie]

Mana is quantification of resources/potential. Not sure why it's such a big deal. If you don't want mana how can you effectively measure how efficient a ruler can be and how much he/she can achieve? Removing monarch points would basically result in all rulers having the same potential.

So before we jump on the mana-hate bandwagen, maybe imagine yourself as content designer for a second and come up with a better detailed alternative? I would like to see people provide detailed alternatives to monarch points. And it'll help us judge whether the mana system can be replaced by a better one or not.

What if i don't want any quantification? A system in which i don't have to exchange a number in a screen with another number on the same screen? What if maybe i want a system in which i don't need to spend made up mana to incourage pops and i can do it more organically? In which internal politics isn't just a series of numbers and buttons and flashy icons?

I like EU4, i really do. It's just a very low bar to set for a strategy game.

 

[Yiorgakis]

If everyone is against monarch points how have paradox managed to sell so well recently?

Futhermore, how many here work in game development because many of the "solutions" sounds pretty impractical?

Because everyone can push mana buttons every 2 minutes and declare wars every 10 minutes, with no effort required.If you want to play with mana, you can be a mage in any MMO or D&D.People are arguing that complexity can be achieved without the magical powers that can be saved,instead, arguing that a CK2 system of traits+points on every skill to represent competency and the ruler's capabalities to be a better way, since it requires actual effort to learn and master the game.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

CK2 can measure how efficient a ruler can be just fine without random mana points. Skills and traits in that game make sense and largely dictate what your character can do, unless you already have a massive realm for example your inbred imbecile with 2 martial probably won't be the next Alexander. Having an heir pop out at 0/0/0 and never being able to change doesn't make sense and you have little to no control over it. It's worse in every way imaginable.

Except that CK2 has mana governing technology. You get points based on your rulers stats that add up over time until you get enough to choose your next advancement then with one click and poof you've just got a new technology.

 

[Atour Bet Khaya]

The issue with mana points (esp. in EU4) is not that they exist, but how you get them.

Admin, diplo, mil, and money are all currencies in EU4, but the players have no problems with money, because you get it from logical, realistic, controllable sources - trade, taxation, conquest (indemnities), diplomatic gifts, etc. If a player invests his/her effort into having a better economy, they will gain more money.

However, mana doesn't work like that. Firstly, you get it just from the passage of time (3/month base + extra from rulers, etc.) which makes little sense - its not like it becomes easier to run an empire just because you've waited some months without making any decisions. Ruler stats aren't something you can control, making these 'currencies' seem more arbitrary and abstract than money.

Ideally, mana should come from related, controllable actions. So for example, mil points could be gained from investing in and maintaining a powerful army - staying at force limit, having maintainance maxed, drilling, fighting wars of conquest, answering calls to arms, etc.; diplo from maintaining alliances, having your dynasty on foreign thrones, etc.; admin from low unrest, running a budget surplus, being debt free, having lots of accepted cultures, etc.

TL;DR - mana is fine if it comes from things related to building powerful militaries, beaurocracies, etc. and not just time/having a good ruler.

 

[cplfernandez]

I feel the main reason mana is used is because it offers players instant feedback which allows for better entry to the game and faster learning. Vic2 is painfully hard for new players. Not because the AI is amazing or the game is so challenging but because it isn't intuitive and the mechanics are hidden behind simulations and abstractions(meaning non intuitive abstractions).

I enjoy vic2 and mods like m&t but they do have their downsides that make them extremely frustrating for new players that result entirely from their attempts to implement simulations.

A mana system is no more or less complicated in terms of game strategic difficulty. Simulations are in no way more strategic than abstractions.

Also if you don't enjoy the games and don't think you will, then don't buy them. Paradox measures performance by sales as they should. Your opinion is best voiced through this.

 

[Thure]

Mana isn't used for technology. Which is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[Yiorgakis]

Except that CK2 has mana governing technology. You get points based on your rulers stats that add up over time until you get enough to choose your next advancement then with one click and poof you've just got a new technology.

Totally my dude, and you can ask others to give you said points every 10 years or so,which magically appear and can be abused to hell and back.You can also use them to upgrade your castles and add more holdings.Oh wait :^)

 

[DreadGrunt]

Except that CK2 has mana governing technology. You get points based on your rulers stats that add up over time until you get enough to choose your next advancement then with one click and poof you've just got a new technology.

Buildings (universities, monastic schools etc) play a part in that as do province modifiers (great library, scholar foundation etc), it's not totally based on mana.

 

[S. Dole Melipone]

Except that CK2 has mana governing technology. You get points based on your rulers stats that add up over time until you get enough to choose your next advancement then with one click and poof you've just got a new technology.

This. I've rushed techs by "roleplaying" many a stargazer.

And how is piety and prestige not a "magic mana"? Like literally one of the strats to play wide is to prestige bomb your vassals for that healthy +10 opinion bonus which is huge.

It's one of my fave games but let's get real.

Ruler stats are numbers and are absolutely fundamental. Not completely random but we still get a run of bad luck but guess what they won't be completely random in I:R either it has a concept of characters.

So I think we should stop describing this extremely important strategy game concept as "upsetting" and "magic". I mean please it's kinda embarrassing now and I'm not surprised the devs are getting frustrated with us.

 

[Jamey]

Another DD and another gameplay mechanic that is entirely balanced and designed around using your magic mana points. And that is really upseting. How can it be that everything player would do in I:R has to involve using mana resources? It's wrong direction, I don't want I:R to be EU4 in ancient times.

Mana was a mildly amusing meme 5 years ago. Let it go.

 

[Yiorgakis]

This. I've rushed techs by "roleplaying" many a stargazer.

And how is piety and prestige not a "magic mana"? Like literally one of the strats to play wide is to prestige bomb your vassals for that healthy +10 opinion bonus which is huge.

It's one of my fave games but let's get real.

Ruler stats are numbers and are absolutely fundamental. Not completely random but we still get a run of bad luck but guess what they won't be completely random in I:R either it has a concept of characters.

So I think we should stop describing this extremely important strategy game concept as "upsetting" and "magic". I mean please it's kinda embarrassing now and I'm not surprised the devs are getting frustrated with us.

Prestige is magic, it's not like kings back in the day had to worry about their image and being considered great or anything of the sort, and it's not like having titles or conquering counties gave you prestige.And what about gold? It's mana too, you magically make money to fund your various endeavours and magically upgrade settlements with "money".I hope you get why strawmanning is bad.

 

[Darth.]

Every game has 'mana'. Stellaris has energy, food and minerals. CK2 has gold, piety and prestige (but mostly gold). Other strategy games not just from paradox will have 'mana'. The ones that don't are the boring, repetitive ones. Whether that 'mana' is called gold, adm points, food, cash, ducats, minerals, SP, Iron, Silver, Bronze, 'mana' in the end is a resource, and all games have resources. to be used for researching technology or improving your cities/countries/empires. Rather than endlessly complaining, why not actually try and get the system changed by suggesting alternatives to the devs?

EDIT: Like this:

The issue with mana points (esp. in EU4) is not that they exist, but how you get them.

Admin, diplo, mil, and money are all currencies in EU4, but the players have no problems with money, because you get it from logical, realistic, controllable sources - trade, taxation, conquest (indemnities), diplomatic gifts, etc. If a player invests his/her effort into having a better economy, they will gain more money.

However, mana doesn't work like that. Firstly, you get it just from the passage of time (3/month base + extra from rulers, etc.) which makes little sense - its not like it becomes easier to run an empire just because you've waited some months without making any decisions. Ruler stats aren't something you can control, making these 'currencies' seem more arbitrary and abstract than money.

Ideally, mana should come from related, controllable actions. So for example, mil points could be gained from investing in and maintaining a powerful army - staying at force limit, having maintainance maxed, drilling, fighting wars of conquest, answering calls to arms, etc.; diplo from maintaining alliances, having your dynasty on foreign thrones, etc.; admin from low unrest, running a budget surplus, being debt free, having lots of accepted cultures, etc.

TL;DR - mana is fine if it comes from things related to building powerful militaries, beaurocracies, etc. and not just time/having a good ruler.

 

[S. Dole Melipone]

Prestige is magic, it's not like kings back in the day had to worry about their image and being considered great or anything of the sort, and it's not like having titles or conquering counties gave you prestige.And what about gold? It's mana too, you magically make money to fund your various endeavours and magically upgrade settlements with "money".I hope you get why strawmanning is bad.

Diplomatic power is magic? All kings had the same military power as Edward I? All as in touch with the finer points of administration? I see exactly one strawman argument here.

 

[Yiorgakis]

Diplomatic power is magic? All kings had the same military power as Edward I? All as in touch with the finer points of administration? I see exactly one strawman argument here.

Remember when they made people more productive via diplomacy?Remember how administration made cities way larger and made everyone pay their taxes indefinetely?Or how militairy made people pay war taxes? Remember how you could ask the burghers to give you their diplomatic power? :^)

 

[thewolf66]

Mana is quantification of resources/potential. Not sure why it's such a big deal. If you don't want mana how can you effectively measure how efficient a ruler can be and how much he/she can achieve? Removing monarch points would basically result in all rulers having the same potential.

So before we jump on the mana-hate bandwagen, maybe imagine yourself as content designer for a second and come up with a better detailed alternative? I would like to see people provide detailed alternatives to monarch points. And it'll help us judge whether the mana system can be replaced by a better one or not.

It's used for things that are not supposed to be in a ruler's control.
Let's look at EU4:

• A ruler can use his skill to develop every single piece of land in his realm without investing capital. This also applies to every type of government.
• A ruler can use his skill to improve technology at a moment's notice.
• Ruler skill is used to hire generals. No, not to determine their quality to represent an incompetent ruler hiring his family as generals despite they suck at war.
• Ruler's qualification is also needed for national ideas, which are very similar to technology, just a specialisation of it.

Now let's see the new game Imperator:Rome

• Used for inventions
• Used to promote and move pops
• Used to convert pops
• Used to make trade routes

The entire mana system has one purpose and one purpose only. It's there so the player can feel the immediate effects of his actions. Peck a button, get some corn.