I feel monthly autosaves are fine, so long as they aren't some of those god-awful long saves, where all you do is sit there waiting for the game to load a month before it fires again and you're sitting there thinking going Ironman was a stupid idea.
[IDEA]: Fewer Ironman saves; save yearly, and every time the menu is opened
- Thread starter TheBloke
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Does alt+tabbing open up the menu? If it doesn't you can easily close the process from the task manager and reload that way.
You can already do this with the current system. Since the ironman save game is stored locally, you can copy the save game out of the steam directory at anytime. Play the game and than you can overwrite the current save game with the older copy by copying the old save game back into the steam directory, launching the game, close it, and relaunch. This forces a stream resynch and your older save game will replace whatever is in the cloud.
Same here! No issues at all and I am playing on a two and half year old Macbook Pro lol.
I asked for this the very first day of release in August.. not gonna happen. As is, ironman is unplayable for me in later years. Only fix is when the next computer purchase happens.. likely for HOI4.
I think saves with predefined, and known periods will always be exploitable in one way or another. I suggest saves with random intervals, with a mean of one and a half month. An example result would be as following:
You were thinking about going back to 4th of the last month, but you are not sure when was the last save (since the game has no userface for this knowledge.) In that way, you can make matters worse easily without knowing.
You were thinking about going back to 4th of the last month, but you are not sure when was the last save (since the game has no userface for this knowledge.) In that way, you can make matters worse easily without knowing.
Why do people care about other people cheating in single player, its ridiculous elitism and can't possibly be making your own game more fun.
Considering the massive variations between patches achievements aren't comparable anyway - anyone who was playing at launch could get African Power instantly - Trail of Tears was magnitudes harder before CoP etc.
Considering the massive variations between patches achievements aren't comparable anyway - anyone who was playing at launch could get African Power instantly - Trail of Tears was magnitudes harder before CoP etc.
It's not elitism, it's just simply to make achievements comparable. I'm aware that achievements and their difficulty may have fluctuated over the patches but if someone posts a British Empire WC that wasn't completed on ironman, then you can breathe a sigh of relief about you not being able to quite complete that with ironman on. There's nothing wrong with the current system, if you don't like ironman, don't use it, but as it currently stands, its competition and comparison, not elitism, it's healthy.
A not needed change imho.
If you save yearly and not monthly and on every diplomatic action, you might as well just play without ironman. 95% of (my) savescumming happens within under a here after a certain action. Claimed thrones, dows where you trigger a massive counter alliance or the initial battle got lost badly, ruler died too soon or bad 00x heir...
Besides, i have no lags at all.
Granted, i have a fast connection but so do probably 90% of the players. My PC is a 5 year old i5!
If you save yearly and not monthly and on every diplomatic action, you might as well just play without ironman. 95% of (my) savescumming happens within under a here after a certain action. Claimed thrones, dows where you trigger a massive counter alliance or the initial battle got lost badly, ruler died too soon or bad 00x heir...
Besides, i have no lags at all.
Granted, i have a fast connection but so do probably 90% of the players. My PC is a 5 year old i5!
My suggestion covers that - open the menu to re-load, and it would save immediately. No save scumming would be possible at all - in fact, even less than is possible now - unless you kill the process to prevent the save, that's the point of it.
I agree though that the lag may not be too bad for most players. But if it is for some, and the system can be improved without losing meaningful functionality, then that's a worthwhile improvement.
Whether it's worth the time to change the system is a different question.
I think going through so much effort to stop cheating that can happen easy enough anyways for people who actually care to do so is a bit silly.
The least annoying would simply be saving on exit automatically and deleting the save immediately upon loading, which is a common method roguelikes do. This method is vulnerable to crash issues but it has the least in-game impact while still being as cheat-free as plausible.
The least annoying would simply be saving on exit automatically and deleting the save immediately upon loading, which is a common method roguelikes do. This method is vulnerable to crash issues but it has the least in-game impact while still being as cheat-free as plausible.
1) Ctrl+Alt+Del.
2) End process Tree eu4.exe or whatever it is.
3) Restart game and load Jan 1 autosave
Yes. If I was savescumming, I don't want to exit the game properly and sync.
2) End process Tree eu4.exe or whatever it is.
3) Restart game and load Jan 1 autosave
Yes. If I was savescumming, I don't want to exit the game properly and sync.
right now, if you cut the internet connection, you can still play the game. It will sync once you reconnect to steam, but if you just exit to menu, it cant really do anything i think
I agree with OP. The game would benefit from less frequent autosaves.
Also, as stated earlier in the thread, cheaters will always find a way to cheat.
Also, as stated earlier in the thread, cheaters will always find a way to cheat.
I have to quote myself. You guys are talking about killing proccess, but how can you kill proccess and savescum with this:
For all those who feel this is unnecessary because "I have no problem with my autosaves", I think you're missing the point. I'm glad that you don't have any issues playing Ironman. However, some other players, myself included, do have issues that lead to the game at best being tedious, or worse unplayable. I'm perfectly happy if Paradox can solve the autosave speed/crash issues, but if that's not possible, I would prefer that an alternative solution is found to make Ironman and enjoyable experience for all players, rather than leaving them by the wayside.
In my opinion, if it's a question between allowing (all) players to play Ironman and get achievements, or preventing some players (those with autosaving issues) from playing Ironman in order to stop other less scrupulous players from getting achievements, I'd err on the side of the former rather than the latter.
In my opinion, if it's a question between allowing (all) players to play Ironman and get achievements, or preventing some players (those with autosaving issues) from playing Ironman in order to stop other less scrupulous players from getting achievements, I'd err on the side of the former rather than the latter.
- 1
I really like this method, and you're right. Plenty of rogue-likes with permadeath do this without too much fuss.
