Why would we need such incentive? Are the tech so horrible and worthless that people don't want to take them and need a special incentive to do so? Not to mention that said incentive just -0,2% power cost.
Is the new "Inovation" mechanic is a pointless adition?
- Thread starter Lor360
- 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.
Because as is there's not a whole lot of incentive to not sit around and wait till it costs less because you can take techs instantly and having the store of MP available helps buffer against things imo.
Absolutely not worth it in my opinion. Bonuses too weak compared to the benefits of using the MPs on other stuff (getting ideas, developing provinces, mainly). I just don't see the benefits, much less for tall play by the way.
But what is the point of making such an incentive. They could make conquering Ryukyu give +100000 all monarch points permamently and that would be an incentive to conquer Ryukyu, but why add an incentive to conquer Ryukyu in the first place?
Similarly, they may add all kinds of incentives in the world to make being 10 or 20 years ahead of time in tech better, but what for, if we are clearly not meant to be too far ahead in tech (see the freaking increase in cost of techs that are ahead of time for further reference).
It's yet another case of shizophrenic design that is becoming more and more common in EU4. "We punish you heavily for X but also add a small reward for actually doing X."
I like the idea, but it's extremely badly calibrated here. If it is how I intended when reading the dev post, then the Devs failed to do some simple math here. Maybe I didn't understand correctly or maybe they didn't disclose everything and there are other things that will help along the way to get the 100%.
This is what I wrote in their thread:
"If you only get 2 points for being the first to research an Idea or a technology, then the whole thing seems badly calibrated to me and the reward isn't really worthwhile in the
unlikely case you manage to achieve it.
You must be first into research about 50 between ideas and technologies. 15 of those must be necessarily technologies if you want to get the bonus before the first half of the campaign.
Because reaching it in the last 50 years would be totally useless considering the effort to get it.
Now, being the first to research certain ideas...you might be able to be the first to research the first set, but after that probably all the ideas have been taken and you won't be
the first one to research any of them anymore because among the hundreds of factions in the game every idea groups has been taken as first idea by at least one faction.
Being ahead in the technology is extremely costly particularly as the game proceed after 1550. In my games there's always some AI faction who gladly pay 4-5 years penalty for being aot.
Very often even more than 4-5 years.
So I as a player, should renounce to the -5% technology bonus for the whole game (because otherwise even after getting the 100% score, I'd be losing it again) and then I'll have to pay a malus of 40-50% cost in technology for at least 14-15 level...(which will be extremely hard considering how and where certain institutions spread).
I hope I understood it wrong, because if this is the case the developers failed to do some simple math here."
This is what I wrote in their thread:
"If you only get 2 points for being the first to research an Idea or a technology, then the whole thing seems badly calibrated to me and the reward isn't really worthwhile in the
unlikely case you manage to achieve it.
You must be first into research about 50 between ideas and technologies. 15 of those must be necessarily technologies if you want to get the bonus before the first half of the campaign.
Because reaching it in the last 50 years would be totally useless considering the effort to get it.
Now, being the first to research certain ideas...you might be able to be the first to research the first set, but after that probably all the ideas have been taken and you won't be
the first one to research any of them anymore because among the hundreds of factions in the game every idea groups has been taken as first idea by at least one faction.
Being ahead in the technology is extremely costly particularly as the game proceed after 1550. In my games there's always some AI faction who gladly pay 4-5 years penalty for being aot.
Very often even more than 4-5 years.
So I as a player, should renounce to the -5% technology bonus for the whole game (because otherwise even after getting the 100% score, I'd be losing it again) and then I'll have to pay a malus of 40-50% cost in technology for at least 14-15 level...(which will be extremely hard considering how and where certain institutions spread).
I hope I understood it wrong, because if this is the case the developers failed to do some simple math here."
You may also see this as a way to reduce the disadvantage of being ahead in technology or ideas.
I mean so far you get too much punished for being ahead of time, so much that everyone suggest to stay behind in tech (particularly adm and dip tech).
So I personally welcome the idea. But the way they presented it ,it seems to me very badly calibrated.
Nope, you understand it perfectly right. This is exactly how it's going to play out. I imagine they make add two-three innovativeness events that might make getting it a bit easier and maybe some of the existing events/modifiers will give it, but your reasoning is on point.
It's still shizophrenic, though. Doubly so, because only the victor of the tech race gets the prize, so it's going to cause a lot of frustration of the kind "oh no, I've been investing heavily to get that tiny bonus and now [nation name] has snatched it from me by a month [or so]".
Yes.
Haven't played EU4 for over a year, and even that experience hasn't gone beyond 1.14.4. But I do follow EU4 development. Watched the Third Rome closely, failed to find anything of interest for a player of my caliber. A huge theme was basically wasted. Now this.
Patches? Do tell me, what good stuff has been added in between? Maybe just Ages (haven't played, so cannot tell for sure), disinheritance and monarch/leader traits.
Just my 2 cents from an (effectively) outsider.
It's a good start of rewarding different play styles, for example tall countries usually have a lot of monarch points left.
The problem is that Innovativenss is too hard to gain and not quite rewarding, similarly many other things (like coal) just sound lame or incomplete. Still, I am glad to see PDX trying to buff different play styles other than blobbing hard, but I don't really mind waiting longer for a new patch to see better outputs.
The problem is that Innovativenss is too hard to gain and not quite rewarding, similarly many other things (like coal) just sound lame or incomplete. Still, I am glad to see PDX trying to buff different play styles other than blobbing hard, but I don't really mind waiting longer for a new patch to see better outputs.
Yes. More features bolted on that no one was asking for. More things for the player to pay attention to. More real estate in the UI taken up. It's feature bloat. Each DLC introduces more -100 to 100 sliding meters and unique buttons to click on for a handful of countries. Maybe it's time to think about EU5.
Cost effectiveness and efficiency don’t interest you at all? Teching up early is just throwing away points
If that’s your belief then you aren’t very savvy with how tall play works. When you play tall you are trying to milk every point and utilize every resource to the best of your ability. Development, mercantilism, culture conversion, blitzing through idea groups, etc.
Development is the biggest one. It gets incredibly expensive mid-late game, and it tends to drain your reserves of mana dry. Throwing away hundreds of points by teching early just so you can maybe get some measly bonus is not worth it or better than the current playstyle. Maybe in the late game, when you have run out of effective ways to spend your mana, but at that point the power cost reduction means nothing.
This. If you REALLY want to play tall, which means getting as many provinces as possible over 30 development (to accelerate institution spread), be ready to hoard MPs. Throwing them away for a minimum bonus that you don´t even really control... Nope, it goes against what tall play requires.
According to historian Philip Hoffman in his book "Why Did Europe Conquer the World?", European countries were driven to innovate due to intense military competition and very high spending on both military technology and the administrative innovations necessary to fund military spending. So I think innovation should be tied to power projection, which in turn should depend more on warning, insulting and humiliating enemies.
I like this idea, it fits the narrative and it creates another way to gain innovativeness.
blobbers only stay up to day on mil tech, they have better things to do with the other mana, you lose the +1 bonus in 3 years at -0.03 monthly (I guess, unless it is yearly??), with 2 techs you wont be up to date you will lose that rather quick and remain at zero, unless you mean a multiplayer scenario where the blobber stops blobbing and plays tall?, yeah but you wouldnt stay opm in a multiplayter game unless it was agreed to leave you alone lol
also it is not 10% development cost, it is -10% power costs, so -10% development efficiency, -10% idea cost, -10% tech cost, -10% core cost, -10% stab cost, -10% war exhaustion cost, -10% harsh treatment cost, -10% unjustified demands, -10% inflation reduction, -10% war taxes, -10% do i have to keep going??
(and not even that because it is multiplicative, not additive, with those costs too!)
so now that you are start to think with portals, add innovative ideas for another 10% tech reduction, and humanism for idea reduction, and be the very first, now the blobber cant get anything because you are getting things way ahead of time (unless they eat you, lol)
Nailed it. Features that actually make me play the game differently are few and far between nowadays.
but this is the most easy to get mechanic, you can easily pick a tech with 20-50 of difference and just keep swiming in that sweet sweet modifier
That's incredibly unfair.
Are all their mechanics well thought out? No
Did everything they introduce work at start? No
Do I agree with all of their design choices? Hahahahaha, no
But to say there's nothing of interest is pushing it way too far.
Age mechanisms do add interesting minigames and you get to chose your own order which isn't set in stone for every nation or situation.
Comparing Institutions to Westernization is like comparing Skyrim to Minesweeper.
Iqta policies and reworked piety events allow for a much more flexible playstyle when leading muslim nations.
And much, much more.
I'm probably the last one to say the game is in a good state right now. 1.18 relics are everywhere and are, together with Mandate of Heaven leftovers, ruining player's experiences even if most can't put their finger on it.
But to blatantly throw out that there hasn't been a single interesting development is disingenuous, especially since you yourself have pointed out you've never even played beyond 1.14, but have followed patchnotes.
Cradle of Civilization alone had me interested in its mechanics for a full campaign, which is ~12 hours, and the whole region being reworked made playing the area interesting for another 20 hours with ease.
That's 32 hours of exploring and re-learning. Absolutely worth the price.
Last edited:
This right here sums up everything wrong with the recent patches/DLCs by Paradox. Their "modular" system brings isolated mechanics that are way too shallow, hardly worth the effort, and either ignorable or annoying. Absolutism was good in a way, Professionalism was fun to experiment with until the nerf came up and just put it on the pile of things that shouldn't exist, alongside Estates and Revanchism.
And it looks like that family is gaining one more member in the form of Innovativeness.