I Was Once Content...

[SnowHawkKiller]

I honestly didn't think they were going to be removed in the first place. That would involve somebody admitting they were wrong which isn't going to happen. Coalitions were a complete ahistorical planet spanning mess when they were first introduced and they still tried to defend it. I work in QA and you will never convince that this was tested in any meaningful way because the size, scope, and overall implementation would be the first thing I would test. But then again they may be overworked and simply weren't given enough time.

What's going to happen is they're going to tweak all the things people don't like until they become at best an easily ignored annoyance. If I had to make a bet the auto Call to arms isn't going to stick I can tell right now because it breaks too many popular mods that help drive sales of the game. In the end the whole DLC will be reduced to toothless background noise aside from the council and new kid raising mechanics which are nice additions.

This is what happens when you lack a solid design philosophy a lot of time is spent on useless things and further time is wasted fixing said useless things. It just turns into changing things for its own sake without an overriding goal/big picture to drive the changes.

The fact they're changing core design mechanics this late into the product cycle I find strange. Feels like a lot of these ideas should be in a beta of CKIII somewhere.

Random idea for Call to Arms:

Issue: players ignore CTA at a whim and suffer no real consequences for doing so.
Proposed solution: refusal of a CTA should be more important an overall opinion decrease for 5 to 10 years, a reduction of diplomacy skills, a negative trait, or some combination of the three should be implemented. In extreme cases if refusal causes an ally to suffer greatly lose a lot of land (exceeds a certain threshold) or lose of high level title (king/emperor) they may attempt some form of revenge such as an invasion (they can get event troops and wage a revenge war) or attempted assassination.

The key is not to remove choice but add weight to choices and add more branching paths to the tree.

I completely agree, I just wish they would look at the thousands of possibilities open to them instead of the horrible ones they implemented. Lots of people would be so happy if they just admitted they were wrong and took in some 100% community feedback instead of just 10% of it.

 

[Alfy]

I completely agree, I just wish they would look at the thousands of possibilities open to them instead of the horrible ones they implemented. Lots of people would be so happy if they just admitted they were wrong and took in some 100% community feedback instead of just 10% of it.

They're not going to take 100% of the community's advice, and they are right not to do so. You don't make games "by popular demand", it does not work. For one thing, the community isn't monolithic in its demands. For another, if I was a game designer, I would not want to just make the game random people ask me, I would want to make MY game. And if CKII had come out with coalitions and SRs, I would not be here complaining,I would just stop playing because the vision doesn't suit me (pretty much what happened with EUIV for me).

But I completely agree they should have a long look at some of the community has proposed instead of the recent changes. I don't mind a game designer that has a different vision than mine, but I mind a lot when the spirit of a game I am seriously involved in gets so twisted so late in its inception.

I keep hearing the current dev team is new to CKII: for the life of me, I don't understand how they cannot get that they are not supposed to rewrite the game at this stage. They say the old alliance system was too easily gamed: by who?? When?? How can they change something so fundamental so drastically, when clearly they do not have a clue what their changes entail? And what in the world make them think that SRs and coalitions, 2 mechanics that have never been particularly adored in EUIV, are ok to put anywhere else? Talk about wearing blinders...

I don't get these devs, but the one assumption I think I can safely make is that they have very little understanding of the work done by those who preceded them. Except when it comes to Aquitaine and Flanders, then all of the sudden full continuity is assured... Yeah, I feel we lost big time.

On one hand, is not a big deal: we have 2.4.5, an ok final version of CKII. On the other, it means none of the outstanding issues will ever get solved. But then, to be honest, CKII often felt as the game that's almost there, but never quite.

 

[alvanio]

Been playing Conclave for a while now, multiple start-as-count-end-as-king games and I've yet had a coalition against me. Although I never rapidly expand so perhaps thats why?

 

[SnowHawkKiller]

They're not going to take 100% of the community's advice, and they are right not to do so. You don't make games "by popular demand", it does not work. For one thing, the community isn't monolithic in its demands. For another, if I was a game designer, I would not want to just make the game random people ask me, I would want to make MY game. And if CKII had come out with coalitions and SRs, I would not be here complaining,I would just stop playing because the vision doesn't suit me (pretty much what happened with EUIV for me).

But I completely agree they should have a long look at some of the community has proposed instead of the recent changes. I don't mind a game designer that has a different vision than mine, but I mind a lot when the spirit of a game I am seriously involved in gets so twisted so late in its inception.

I keep hearing the current dev team is new to CKII: for the life of me, I don't understand how they cannot get that they are not supposed to rewrite the game at this stage. They say the old alliance system was too easily gamed: by who?? When?? How can they change something so fundamental so drastically, when clearly they do not have a clue what their changes entail? And what in the world make them think that SRs and coalitions, 2 mechanics that have never been particularly adored in EUIV, are ok to put anywhere else? Talk about wearing blinders...

I don't get these devs, but the one assumption I think I can safely make is that they have very little understanding of the work done by those who preceded them. Except when it comes to Aquitaine and Flanders, then all of the sudden full continuity is assured... Yeah, I feel we lost big time.

On one hand, is not a big deal: we have 2.4.5, an ok final version of CKII. On the other, it means none of the outstanding issues will ever get solved. But then, to be honest, CKII often felt as the game that's almost there, but never quite.

Its just so depressing that any DLC that comes out in the future won't mean anything to quite a bit of the CK2 community and after the changes they made with this patch and DLC I'm frightened by what kind of twisted, wonky, broken mechanics they'll introduce into the up coming patch that will accompany the new DLC they're already making. Just the fact that they introduced these features and don't care about what a sizable portion of their fan base thinks can only mean more horrendous features that fix things that never needed fixing.

Been playing Conclave for a while now, multiple start-as-count-end-as-king games and I've yet had a coalition against me. Although I never rapidly expand so perhaps thats why?

Coalitions form at 5% threat, although they changed it so world spanning coalitions don't form until 50% threat. Conquering a single county typically gives you 5% or higher. So if you've never encountered a coalition, it could mean that once you formed a kingdom or were over 24 holdings you never attempted to expand.

 

[Alfy]

Its just so depressing that any DLC that comes out in the future won't mean anything to quite a bit of the CK2 community and after the changes they made with this patch and DLC I'm frightened by what kind of twisted, wonky, broken mechanics they'll introduce into the up coming patch that will accompany the new DLC they're already making. Just the fact that they introduced these features and don't care about what a sizable portion of their fan base thinks can only mean more horrendous features that fix things that never needed fixing.

Paradox does not actually think it's a sizable part of their player base. Check this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...r-problem-reports-checksum-yzaz.911704/page-1. Darkrenown makes it clear.

By the way, that thread is strangely devoid of anyone who dislikes the changes. I can understand people getting tired of beating a dead horse, but it makes a couple of poor sods making a stand there looking like idiots...

 

[gdj]

"The community" is not against threat and infamy. It has been demanded for years now that his blobbing nonsense has to be toned down, like in pretty much every other grand strategy game of quality

Coalitions form at 5% threat. Conquering a single county typically gives you 5% or higher. So if you've never encountered a coalition, it could mean that once you formed a kingdom or were over 24 holdings you never attempted to expand.

Sorry, but this is absurd. A coalition formed by conquering a singly duchy disappears within a few months. I never had a meaningful coalition either and typically expand around 8-10 counties per ruler at the most. If you have coalitions all the time you are simply taking too much too fast which is exactly what this mechanic is supposed to prevent, and exactly what has been demanded for years. Don´t tell me you cant remeber all the "empires too strong", "Byzantium OP" threads and the like..

 

[AchedTeacher]

"Roll back the game lol" <<this is an option, not a solution.

 

[Alfy]

"The community" is not against threat and infamy. It has been demanded for years now that his blobbing nonsense has to be toned down, like in pretty much every other grand strategy game of quality



Sorry, but this is absurd. A coalition formed by conquering a singly duchy disappears within a few months. I never had a meaningful coalition either and typically expand around 8-10 counties per ruler at the most. If you have coalitions all the time you are simply taking too much too fast which is exactly what this mechanic is supposed to prevent, and exactly what has been demanded for years. Don´t tell me you cant remeber all the "empires too strong", "Byzantium OP" threads and the like..

First, a stop to crazy blobbing has indeed been demanded for years. Not threat and coalitions, though. A stupid solution to a real problem is no solution at all, and that's why so many alternatives have been proposed.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood SnowHawk's post. You might want to reread it, although perhaps changing his first 5% by 50%.

 

[AchedTeacher]

Sorry, but this is absurd. A coalition formed by conquering a singly duchy disappears within a few months. I never had a meaningful coalition either and typically expand around 8-10 counties per ruler at the most. If you have coalitions all the time you are simply taking too much too fast which is exactly what this mechanic is supposed to prevent, and exactly what has been demanded for years. Don´t tell me you cant remeber all the "empires too strong", "Byzantium OP" threads and the like..

A coalition forms over a single duchy and you think that's okay? I don't care how long it lasts for or how big it is, a duchy is not enough for a coalition.

 

[gdj]

A coalition forms over a single duchy and you think that's okay? I don't care how long it lasts for or how big it is, a duchy is not enough for a coalition.

OK, opinions are divided on this, and we seem to agree that we disagree. No offense, of course.

The way i see it having a neighbour who takes a duchy in the vicinity is a threat. Why?

Because for example, as posted elsewhere, rulers in CK2 don´t have absolute control over their aland when they grow. Very small (or petty) kingdoms can have kings who hold everything personally, but all others have vassals, who may fabricate on you, and force their liege into a war against you through a favor. And the larger a realm gets, the more prevalent occurences like this get. Mind, this is only one example of many why i agree to the threat-and-pact-mechanic

 

[Alfy]

OK, opinions are divided on this, and we seem to agree that we disagree. No offense, of course.

The way i see it having a neighbour who takes a duchy in the vicinity is a threat. Why?

Because for example, as posted elsewhere, rulers in CK2 don´t have absolute control over their aland when they grow. Very small (or petty) kingdoms can have kings who hold everything personally, but all others have vassals, who may fabricate on you, and force their liege into a war against you through a favor. And the larger a realm gets, the more prevalent occurences like this get. Mind, this is only one example of many why i agree to the threat-and-pact-mechanic

Should it not depend on the size of the duchy, its importance, its revenue, whether it rightfully belongs to that neighbor, etc...? Isn't this a game about dynasties, relationships, medieval life, and not just about land grabbing? Sometimes a neighbor grabs a single county and it bothers me a lot, because he's going the same way as I. Sometimes a house I have a great relationship with makes a move, and I like it because he'll be a stronger ally in the future.

Seriously, this game used to be all about opinions and your relationships with your liege, your vassals and you neighbors. Now it's all automatic and opinion does not matter. Whether they like you or not, vassals will revolt, coalitions will be formed and allies will join. Meet the threshold and bam, 100% of the time. It's the complete antithesis of how the game used to work!

I get that some people might like it better that way, but then why oh why were these people playing CKII in the first place?? It's like the very foundations of the game sucked all these years, and finally they get the procedural wargame they were pining for!

 

[alvanio]

Coalitions form at 5% threat. Conquering a single county typically gives you 5% or higher. So if you've never encountered a coalition, it could mean that once you formed a kingdom or were over 24 holdings you never attempted to expand.

Started as count of Oxford and made it up to king of England, Wales and Ireland. Went to war with Scotland with "Press all claims". I had claims on two counties. While I was waging war I got fabricate claim on the northern duchy, has like 3-4 counties. Apperently I could sue for peace and get those aswell. So in the end I had 2 more counties of my own and a duchy with 3-4 vassals. Unless there is no "silent" coalition thing going on, I didnt get it. I assume there is like a "X has entered a coalition against you" message like in EU4?

 

[luc124]

Gentleman, if you hate conclave like me, you dont even need to roll the game back, simply disable the dlc. Also, if paradox releases new dlc in the future, you will very probaly not require conlcave to play them.

 

[luc124]

I read a theory that Paradox is intentionally sabotaging the player interest in continuing to play CK 2 by releasing badly optimized changes in the forced patches so that when they release CK 3 more people will buy it rather than sticking to CK 2. I hope that theory is wrong but I'm a naturally paranoid guy so that theory seems plausible to me.

I dont think so, CK3 is still far away from existance, we have HOI4 coming up, new EU4 dlc's in the making and a new game (Maybe Vicky 3?) also in the making, so we will not be seeing ck3 for a lot of time. However, since CK2 was such a surpise hit, it will eventually come, im sure of it.

 

[gdj]

Should it not depend on the size of the duchy, its importance, its revenue, whether it rightfully belongs to that neighbor, etc...? Isn't this a game about dynasties, relationships, medieval life, and not just about land grabbing? Sometimes a neighbor grabs a single county and it bothers me a lot, because he's going the same way as I. Sometimes a house I have a great relationship with makes a move, and I like it because he'll be a stronger ally in the future.

Seriously, this game used to be all about opinions and your relationships with your liege, your vassals and you neighbors. Now it's all automatic and opinion does not matter. Whether they like you or not, vassals will revolt, coalitions will be formed and allies will join. Meet the threshold and bam, 100% of the time. It's the complete antithesis of how the game used to work!

I get that some people might like it better that way, but then why oh why were these people playing CKII in the first place?? It's like the very foundations of the game sucked all these years, and finally they get the procedural wargame they were pining for!

These mechanics were implemented to prevent CK2 being a pure land-grabbing wargame. I can totally agree to your view of the game, i see it likewise, but the earlier versions were lacking in this respect.

Lets take Duklja/Serbia as an example (one of my favourite campaign settings). Before Conclave, Byzantium always came crashing down on you, even with 100 relations with the emperor, simply because all your land is de jure his (which is bullocks btw). You basically had the choice of "join or die".

Now, pacts, favours help you to stabilize this tenous realtionship and stay independent, letting you focus on characters, marriages, alliances and the like. I still think that these mechanics, though far from being perfect, add a lot of variety to the game.

 

[Alfy]

From what you say, they add variety to a particular setting, which is screwed up to start with (I know the feeling, I like to start I like to start in Flanders). I'd also argue it'd be much more interested to join, if you had any hope the blob would break up later on and you have a renewed chance at independence.

But when you say the many features were implemented just to stop CKII from being a more common strategy game, I'm really not so sure. My memory might be flawed, but the original vanilla game was sold as dynastic simulator. That's why I bought it. And the stat all these mechanics ignore, the main stat that is tracked for each character all over the game, is opinion.

Note that I'm not saying all was fine before, far from it. If it was, I would be content playing older versions instead of being all up in arms. There are tons of changes I can think of. But the new mechanics were so disconnected from the old ones, most of the work on the patch is about reconnecting (coalitions and religion, in is case).

I get it that's it's impossible to make everyone happy. I guess I'm just miserable because the things that made the game great FOR ME have been toned down to the point of irrelevance. What's the point of houses and relationships and loyalty and betrayal when the influence of opinion gets obliterated? And I feel it's unfair, because map painters have EUIV, and soon HoIIV, so there was really no need to do that to CKII.

 

[Ilyasviel]

I get it that's it's impossible to make everyone happy. I guess I'm just miserable because the things that made the game great FOR ME have been toned down to the point of irrelevance. What's the point of houses and relationships and loyalty and betrayal when the influence of opinion gets obliterated? And I feel it's unfair, because map painters have EUIV, and soon HoIIV, so there was really no need to do that to CKII.

Paradox's philosophy right now seems to be that every game should be EU4. Even HOI4 seems to be getting the same treatment, with fuhrer mana and casualized combat (compared to HOI3). All their games are turning into really abstracted board games with very arbitrary rules.

 

[Cniht]

The answer to the OP is: Paradox Interactive wanted to make 'another' quick 10 spot.

End list.

Reasons for their choices, others have alluded to. Someone who can make development decisions has fallen into a rut where they think all their titles should basically play the same. So they are constantly dragging over the same mechanics from one game to others, regardless of what the player base wants or asks for.

 

[SnowHawkKiller]

Paradox does not actually think it's a sizable part of their player base. Check this thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...r-problem-reports-checksum-yzaz.911704/page-1. Darkrenown makes it clear.

By the way, that thread is strangely devoid of anyone who dislikes the changes. I can understand people getting tired of beating a dead horse, but it makes a couple of poor sods making a stand there looking like idiots...

I know what you mean, everywhere you look around the forums there's discontent. I walked into one of the patch threads like Maximilian walked into Mexico, expecting to have showers of praise but instead got downvoted to hell. I've found it really odd that the patch threads have so many people who are in favor of them despite the opinion of the majority of the forum at the moment.

Started as count of Oxford and made it up to king of England, Wales and Ireland. Went to war with Scotland with "Press all claims". I had claims on two counties. While I was waging war I got fabricate claim on the northern duchy, has like 3-4 counties. Apperently I could sue for peace and get those aswell. So in the end I had 2 more counties of my own and a duchy with 3-4 vassals. Unless there is no "silent" coalition thing going on, I didnt get it. I assume there is like a "X has entered a coalition against you" message like in EU4?

I believe it gives you a message, I'm not completely sure. I know for a fact that when the coalition disbands it tells you that they left it. But if you look at your character it would have something in the diplomatic section at the bottom of the character panel telling you that there's a Muslim, Christian, and Pagan coalition against you.

 

[Hecaton]

I know what you mean, everywhere you look around the forums there's discontent. I walked into one of the patch threads like Maximilian walked into Mexico, expecting to have showers of praise but instead got downvoted to hell. I've found it really odd that the patch threads have so many people who are in favor of them despite the opinion of the majority of the forum at the moment.

There's a certain segment of the forum-goers who would say 'Working as intended, PI are genius game designers!' if the game scraped your credit card info and stole your checking account's funds to Sweden.