Yes, I know, those 10 seconds it takes to do that are so inconvenient.
In-depth Guide to CKII - Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Meneth
- 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.
Yes, I know, those 10 seconds it takes to do that are so inconvenient.
The real inconvenience is that people are less likely to find it to begin with.
Then again, I find it a bit hard to sympathize with someone if they cannot find the rather clearly labeled 'FAQ' section.
It's not a matter of the time, it's a matter of security settings. Some people have to use secure and semi-secure computers on a regular basis at work. If a site isn't completely prohibited, you might be allowed to view it on some machines, but can't send any information, or accept the cookies required to log in, etc. If you can log in to a site, you may not be allowed to stay logged in (meaning you have to log-in, again, every 10 minutes or so). Why limit or deny these people access for most of their day?
Even if you're just talking about someone who is lazy or paranoid or just surfing by, why inconvenience anyone at all? Why make anyone jump through that extra 10 second hoop? This is the internet! People are lazy. Unless Paradox is unique, most of the traffic on this site is just going to be surfing through, not interested in logging in or bothering to. Shouldn't you be encouraging them to stay rather than telling them to move along? Isn't Paradox trying to use the forum to try to lure potential new customers?
Again, the question is WHY? How does this benefit Paradox or the game users? This increased inclination to hide and deny access to more and more forums is hard to understand. You can't seriously think that hiding/denying access to something called a FAQ is somehow likely to reduce piracy or increase sales? Or does someone actually believe that? It might reduce traffic, is that a motivation? Are the servers becoming overloaded, again?
Won't even look for it, if they are just passing by, or just here to investigate the game. Only existing, registered CK2 customers can even see that a FAQ sub-forum is there. A potentially powerful marketing tool that YOU have provided for Paradox, free of charge (I assume), has been buried and effectively nerfed.
Again, not clearly labeled at all. Not even visible, unless you're a logged-in, registered customer, who probably already knows how to play the game. I guess new users might still benefit, if they register and bother to hunt around. But someone trying to decide whether the game is for them can't see the most useful thread there is (excuse me... was). Potential new customers can go f*** themselves, I guess.
And me? While I was learning the game, I liked to keep the page to Meneth's guide open. If I still wanted to do that, I'd have to log in to the forums every time I played, and keep logging in every time I was booted out. Not a huge investment of time, but an irritating series of hoops to have to jump. I wouldn't; doubt many people would; Guide just gets used less.
Wow, didn't know that. I assumed it was, like the User Modifications visible but un-enterable.
That's something that should be dealt with. There is as you say, absolutely no indication right now for unregistered/logged out users that an FAQ section even exists.
Well for my pennyworth... As I'm about to do a print version, so gamers can flick out of their game and read it, instead of having to be internet connected and log on etc etc....
It was very useful to be able to view the guide as I needed to.
But Veldmaarschalk has repeatedly put the guide into an FAQ, which is not accessible to me (I don't have the game). But don't be too hard on Veldmaarschalk, I'm sure he has good reasons for doing so?
It was always my opinion that allowing passers-by to read the guide (and not own the game) might tempt them into buying the game..??
EDIT: Here is the cover of the Guide's print version, smaller than in actuality.
It was very useful to be able to view the guide as I needed to.
But Veldmaarschalk has repeatedly put the guide into an FAQ, which is not accessible to me (I don't have the game). But don't be too hard on Veldmaarschalk, I'm sure he has good reasons for doing so?
It was always my opinion that allowing passers-by to read the guide (and not own the game) might tempt them into buying the game..??
EDIT: Here is the cover of the Guide's print version, smaller than in actuality.
Last edited:
@Meneth: Can you please include the text for the links in your Guide. I don't have access to the Guide in the FAQ section and subsequently, I don't also have the links that are in your text. Please include them underneath if you can. Thanks
... Remember to do me an Introduction, and include it with the rest. Thanks again.
... Remember to do me an Introduction, and include it with the rest. Thanks again.
1) Is there any way to quote from the guide? You can't just cut and paste out of "reply with quote" since the FAQ forum is restricted.
2) The section on DNA in the eugenics guide is a little misleading, in particular this part: "It can be assumed that the worst of the congenital traits only become common when many letters of DNA are shared, while the most positive congenital traits are at the other end of the spectrum.
As every character has eleven letters of DNA, it is reasonable to assume that five are taken from the father, five from the mother, and one is random."
Both of these assumptions are incorrect, or at least in need of qualification. Below is the DNA for 3 parent-child groups. The first 2 children are geniuses; the third is inbred. Between the parents and the child, I've marked where each letter in the child's DNA comes from. Letters passed from the mother to the child are marked |, from the father to the child +, from both parents with *, and random letters are indicated by a blank.
We see the first child has 2 random letters, 3 maternal letters, 4 paternal letters, and 2 common letters; the second child has 1 random letter, 4 maternal letters, 3 paternal letters, and 3 common letters; the third has 1 random letter, 5 maternal letters, 2 paternal letters, and 3 common ones.
The first example shows that DNA is not simply 5 from each parent and 1 random letter. Perhaps that is the norm, but in some cases there can be multiple random letters. I've also seen cases where there is no clearly random letter, although this of course could just be chance (the random letter being the same as one of the parents). I have not seen any cases of more than 2 random letters, or cases where one parent contributed more than 5 letters.
Altogether the examples suggest that positive and negative traits may not be straightforwardly linked the number of shared DNA letters. The inbred character did have a high number of shared letters, but the geniuses also had 2 and 3 shared letters. Again, this could be chance; perhaps they got very lucky, but it suggests that lower is not simply better for positive congenital traits. Note, I have seen geniuses with no common letters, so it doesn't suggest that common letters are necessary.
2) The section on DNA in the eugenics guide is a little misleading, in particular this part: "It can be assumed that the worst of the congenital traits only become common when many letters of DNA are shared, while the most positive congenital traits are at the other end of the spectrum.
As every character has eleven letters of DNA, it is reasonable to assume that five are taken from the father, five from the mother, and one is random."
Both of these assumptions are incorrect, or at least in need of qualification. Below is the DNA for 3 parent-child groups. The first 2 children are geniuses; the third is inbred. Between the parents and the child, I've marked where each letter in the child's DNA comes from. Letters passed from the mother to the child are marked |, from the father to the child +, from both parents with *, and random letters are indicated by a blank.
Code:
lcnmdgkkpaf mother
ioejdhgkenp father
+ +|*+|* |+
ijejdhkkmap genius
mjpdmkihmgm mother
ojadjkhmanj father
+*+*|*+ |||
ojajmkhamgm genius
lcnmdgkkpaf mother
ljofnhekpgd father
* +|+||**||
loomngkkpaf inbred abominationThe first example shows that DNA is not simply 5 from each parent and 1 random letter. Perhaps that is the norm, but in some cases there can be multiple random letters. I've also seen cases where there is no clearly random letter, although this of course could just be chance (the random letter being the same as one of the parents). I have not seen any cases of more than 2 random letters, or cases where one parent contributed more than 5 letters.
Altogether the examples suggest that positive and negative traits may not be straightforwardly linked the number of shared DNA letters. The inbred character did have a high number of shared letters, but the geniuses also had 2 and 3 shared letters. Again, this could be chance; perhaps they got very lucky, but it suggests that lower is not simply better for positive congenital traits. Note, I have seen geniuses with no common letters, so it doesn't suggest that common letters are necessary.
Will do once I've finalized it. I think I might write a final installment this weekend.
No way except copy-pasting AFAIK.
I'll get that corrected.
You have a point. Problem is that if that is indeed not the way it works, we're pretty much left with nothing but complete randomness.
I'm wondering if the negative traits are tied to shared letters, but the positive traits aren't. I've looked at a few more inbred children and their parents all have 3+ common letters. It's a small sample, but it suggests 3 common letters puts you a risk of inbred.
As for the positive traits, perhaps they are simply based on parents/grandparents having the trait?
Almost no one has any of the positive congenital traits at the start, especially genius, so that's unlikely. I'm pretty sure they can appear out of nowhere.
What if the letters themselves are actually important, as in a child gets genius if it has specific letters in certain spots.
Meneth, do you have any further advice as it relates to capital cities? I'm thinking specifically of issues of picking the capital on the basis of being central to empire versus on the basis of legalism or city slots. Also, do you have any recommendations on the best ways to fill capital city slots? Is there a point at which the tech bonus from universities is likely wasted on the "ahead" penalty and the slot would be better spent on a barony?
Thank you for the 140-page PDF. It is an incredible piece of work. As is the game, which I assume is selling well. Congrats.
Thanks for a great guide which has been a valuable introduction to the game for me.
I've noticed a game management problem: Bad stewards reduce demense income.
1) Could you add some details on how the effect of state stewardship on demense income is calculated?
2) Could you suggest ways of improving this effect on income?
I've noticed a game management problem: Bad stewards reduce demense income.
1) Could you add some details on how the effect of state stewardship on demense income is calculated?
2) Could you suggest ways of improving this effect on income?
I don't understand a section of "Keeping Your Vassels Weak".
"For duchies you do much the same. Search for characters that are rulers, are of your religion, and are of your culture. Sort by dynasty, and scroll down to your own. Find someone who owns a single county or barony. One county and one barony is also fine, but only a single holding is preferable."
Should 'rulers' be 'not-rulers' which would be the same as your advice for giving out counties?
Should 'Find someone who owns a single county or barony' read 'Find someone who owns not more than a single county or barony'? I can't see any reason why a title to a single county or barony would be better than no title if the objective is to minimize concentration of power.
"For duchies you do much the same. Search for characters that are rulers, are of your religion, and are of your culture. Sort by dynasty, and scroll down to your own. Find someone who owns a single county or barony. One county and one barony is also fine, but only a single holding is preferable."
Should 'rulers' be 'not-rulers' which would be the same as your advice for giving out counties?
Should 'Find someone who owns a single county or barony' read 'Find someone who owns not more than a single county or barony'? I can't see any reason why a title to a single county or barony would be better than no title if the objective is to minimize concentration of power.
I just stumbled upon this in the defines:
2 #_CHDEF_BASE_NR_OF_CHILDREN_PER_COUPLE_ ( The number of children allowed per couple )
30 #_CHDEF_COURT_SIZE_CHILD_PENALTY_THRESHOLD_ ( When the total number of characters in a country is above this, one less child will be allowed per couple )
If you have a court size above 30 it means half as many kids for you and your nearest family. That is pretty drastic so you need to manage your court and ship off deadweight.
2 #_CHDEF_BASE_NR_OF_CHILDREN_PER_COUPLE_ ( The number of children allowed per couple )
30 #_CHDEF_COURT_SIZE_CHILD_PENALTY_THRESHOLD_ ( When the total number of characters in a country is above this, one less child will be allowed per couple )
If you have a court size above 30 it means half as many kids for you and your nearest family. That is pretty drastic so you need to manage your court and ship off deadweight.
