I had an really surprising and fun Moment lately: In that Moment I clicked on "send colonist" in the province "west tunguska" I got the comet message. That was really fun. Is there a hidden Trigger for the tunguska provinces?
Just how many comets are there in space?
- Thread starter unmerged(739896)
- 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.
Not really, As the anti-"Comet sighted" crowd are forever telling us, a comet isn't only visible in one nation at a time. However, the event only applies to one nation at a time, because in-game it's only in that nation that people are panicking in the streets. "Oh no, is this a sign God is angry with us and our peaceful, sheltered life is about to come to an end?" In the neighbouring countries with civil wars and rebellions and economic collapse, people barely even notice the comet because they're too busy struggling to survive. There's it's more like, "A sign God is angry with us? Yeah, yeah, tell us something we don't already know.".
As for complaining the events are arbitrary: that's the whole point. I'm sure real-life kings and emperors would have loved it if their country always ran smoothly in a predictable clockwork fashion, and there was never any random crisis coming up out of the blue to disrupt things. But real life - and EUIV - doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
Let me repeat what i posted in the 'kick inthe goin post' since it seems more relevant to this post.
I think they mean Meteorites and not Comets. The average peasant might not know the difference between a Comet and a Meteorite.
So how common are those?
Short snipit from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470 :
Those bigger than 10 grams are big and bright enough, to be significant different, from the regular shooting star. You can observe these very common in the sky. Just go out one night, to an area that doesn't suffer from high light pollution, and watch the sky.
If you are lucky you might see a bigger meteorite once a month if you regular watch the sky. It is quite amazing to see. I saw one explode in the atmosphere once. Quite the sight to behold.
So yea the amount of comet sighted event's are far to few to be realistic.
I think they mean Meteorites and not Comets. The average peasant might not know the difference between a Comet and a Meteorite.
So how common are those?
Short snipit from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470 :
Those bigger than 10 grams are big and bright enough, to be significant different, from the regular shooting star. You can observe these very common in the sky. Just go out one night, to an area that doesn't suffer from high light pollution, and watch the sky.
If you are lucky you might see a bigger meteorite once a month if you regular watch the sky. It is quite amazing to see. I saw one explode in the atmosphere once. Quite the sight to behold.
So yea the amount of comet sighted event's are far to few to be realistic.
Only fraction of them wouldn´t end in the sea. Also, they would be visible from more than just one OPM state, or one normal state. Let´s make some hidden areas and everytime there is comet sighted, all nations and the area (like Western Europe, Middle America etc.) would loose atability. Than this argument could be valid.
I think I've figured it out.
The comets are actually a prelude to invasion by the Gamilon Empire, which will be part of Paradox's forthcoming "Star Blazers" DLC. (Plucky modders are already planning to change the names to the original Japanese versions.)
The comets are actually a prelude to invasion by the Gamilon Empire, which will be part of Paradox's forthcoming "Star Blazers" DLC. (Plucky modders are already planning to change the names to the original Japanese versions.)
As StephenT said, you are missing the point. A nation that is unstable may not be affected by a happening that destabilises a highly stable nation because they are already unstable. The peasants see a comet in a peaceful nation and see it has a harbringer of the endtimes, the peasants see a comet in a nation already suffering lawlessness and just see it as confirmation the end times are already here...similarly armies already waiting breathlessly for the next rebellion are less likely to get absorbed in discussions of whether they should go offensive or defensive and so forth.
Leaving aside that a lot of things that impact internal stability are unexpected (aristocracy get absorbed in the latest military theories or potentially heretical philosophy, bad harvest, bank supplying your loans goes broke, ships get wrecked, noble familes quarrel over small slights & somebody gets killed, ecclesiastic dies suddenly, comets pre 1700...) & to be blunt, being blindsided by unexpected crises is a fair part of government both then and now. it begs the question as to what the non-event based stability losses should be (as well as at what point they just become a 100 admin tax to do something).
Edit: by the by
For those of you who have never been out of a city in your life, light pollution in towns and cities makes both stars and comets very difficult to see. But there was no light pollution (unless you count staring into campfires) in the EU period, and in fact little to see at night except the night sky if you were a peasant, or otherwise didn't have the money for a lot of lamps and other entertainment. So yes, bright comets were rather a talking point.
Last edited:
My biggest complaint about this is that there's no good event for comets, except for Austria.
My 1444 Peasants think the same as 1821 peasants, my 1821 peasants think the same as an African Tribesman.
I don't like it. My stable realm that hasn't had war in 40 years and has ushered in peace and prosperity, with 0 RR everywhere, suddenly get a comet, and my people immediately assume that the portal to Hell is opening and we'll all be devoured.
My 1444 Peasants think the same as 1821 peasants, my 1821 peasants think the same as an African Tribesman.
I don't like it. My stable realm that hasn't had war in 40 years and has ushered in peace and prosperity, with 0 RR everywhere, suddenly get a comet, and my people immediately assume that the portal to Hell is opening and we'll all be devoured.
And 2013 peasants think the same as all three. This is realistic, not a problem. Most Americans (well, at least 10 years ago, anyway) believe in psychic powers: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-believe-in-psychic-phenomena/
The problem is how the game handles these random "omens" - not the fact that people should have gotten smarter over 500 years.
Indeed, remember when the USA lost 1 stability, which meant it lost some tax income and some other benefits?
Regardless of whether people believe it's an omen or not, you still lose 1 stability. And that equates to revolt risk if it's -1 or below. I don't get why there's no 'good' event for it.
I refuse to believe that over 500 years, not one generation has thought 'you know, maybe this is a good thing!'
I haven't had any comets for a while. I haven't really been bothering to keep STAB above 0.
Also, I never realised it until recently, but the picture in the box is not a giant finger pointing ominously at the sky. It is a (rather hefty looking) comet.
Also, I never realised it until recently, but the picture in the box is not a giant finger pointing ominously at the sky. It is a (rather hefty looking) comet.
Honestly, I expect that people would have a lot less problem with the comet events if the rest of the events system was more interesting, or for that matter, if there was more implementation of hands-on policy-making in the game. I spent my admin points to raise my stability which means that comets are more likely because the game says so. That's all that's happening. You can come up with whatever clever post hoc fiction you want to explain why, no, no, this all makes sense, but the game itself isn't doing any of that. Moreover, many of the events seem to be disconnected from the actions you take as a ruler, which themselves are kind of hands-off.
The end result is that events feel more just like random card draws rather than things that are at least reasonably related to the actions you take as a ruler or the state of affairs in your realm. Too much of the game feels like it's happening unrelated to anything you're doing...because you aren't actually doing a ton as it is.
I think a lot of people who are "pro comet," as it were, are really more "pro random catastrophes." While I can't speak for the rest of the "anti comet brigade," I want to make something clear: I am not against random problems befalling a ruler in the game. I want that to happen because it does keep the game from being a cakewalk.
But the problem is that so much of the game is hands-off for the player that the events also feel very "hands off" and end up not merely being random, but being disconnected from player activity or only loosely connected to it. Then you're faced with a "frying pan vs. fire" choice, and that's that. I suspect that if players had more direct control over the game in general, and if that control was less abstract than it currently is, (A) the events could be linked to more player decisions, and (B) the players would mind the truly arbitrary events a lot less.
Consider, for example, the difference between how players conduct warfare vs. how players manage their realm in peacetime.
Even at the start of the game, a player can engage in, for example, the Hundred Years War. Winning this as England requires a ton of micromanagement, telling troops which province to move to, determining army composition, managing troop levels and morale, assigning leaders, and deciding when and how to split forces, where to land them, etc. Likewise, players must play the diplomatic game, declaring wars, securing alliances and royal marriages, negotiating for access to ports and provinces with other nations, etc. All of that is very, very hands-on. At the same time, it makes sense if, in some instances, you lose battles because of random bad outcomes, or if you take higher casualties than expected, even if you win. There is still an element of chance in warfare, and players across the board accept that, I expect. Partially, this is because they're already active participants in the process. Yes, shit happens in war, but they know most of the things that influence the outcome (e.g. morale, terrain, leader strengths, army composition, unit types, etc.), and they have an ability to influence the game world sufficiently that they're willing to accept the random element in the outcomes.
That's not the case with peacetime and in particular with the events. Most of the administration of the realm outside of warfare is pretty hands-off. You aren't constantly fiddling with policies or passing legislation, or adjusting tax rates, or whathaveyou. There's some of that, sure, but it's very hands-off and often very abstract to the extent you do anything. Now, I don't expect or want to have to engage in the level of micromanagement required in, say, Civ IV where you had to keep an eye on which city has this or that production levels, which projects followed each other so as to maximize production output, etc. But a LITTLE more hands-on activity would be most welcome.
One of the benefits of the new monarch points system is that it gives us the POTENTIAL for a level of control and fine-tuned management that was lacking in the slider system. Under the slider system, you basically had to wait around for XYZ amount of time, then you moved the slider one way or the other, making a choice between this set of bonuses/maluses, and that set. Now we get to fine-tune policy with admin points and ideas and such, but I still think we could get to do more. The game could stand to have more concrete, hands-on work for the ruler to do. Deciding policy issues, passing national decisions, etc., all of which could be tied to events, some of which would involve necessary stability drops. Wanna try to centralize the government more by passing some administrative national decision? Awesome! But there's a 50% chance you'll take a -1 hit on stability. And you'll set a flag for further events -- random ones -- which may occur as a result of your new administrative position.
Related to this, I suspect that if players had more control over other portions of the game, (A) the need for a mechanic whereby greater stability means greater likelihood of comets would be decreased -- because you'd have plenty of other things that are ACTUALLY related to player choices that would tamp down stability (assuming the goal is to keep people at around 0 or +1 stab at most), and (B) you could actually get away with other totally random events (Bad harvest! Comet! Locusts! Heir's head asplode!) without people feeling like so many of the events are largely unrelated to the game they're playing.
Basically, give the players more direct control, make their choices have consequences, and they'll accept the randomness more (and you'll need far less of it because player choice consequences will have more impact).
The end result is that events feel more just like random card draws rather than things that are at least reasonably related to the actions you take as a ruler or the state of affairs in your realm. Too much of the game feels like it's happening unrelated to anything you're doing...because you aren't actually doing a ton as it is.
I think a lot of people who are "pro comet," as it were, are really more "pro random catastrophes." While I can't speak for the rest of the "anti comet brigade," I want to make something clear: I am not against random problems befalling a ruler in the game. I want that to happen because it does keep the game from being a cakewalk.
But the problem is that so much of the game is hands-off for the player that the events also feel very "hands off" and end up not merely being random, but being disconnected from player activity or only loosely connected to it. Then you're faced with a "frying pan vs. fire" choice, and that's that. I suspect that if players had more direct control over the game in general, and if that control was less abstract than it currently is, (A) the events could be linked to more player decisions, and (B) the players would mind the truly arbitrary events a lot less.
Consider, for example, the difference between how players conduct warfare vs. how players manage their realm in peacetime.
Even at the start of the game, a player can engage in, for example, the Hundred Years War. Winning this as England requires a ton of micromanagement, telling troops which province to move to, determining army composition, managing troop levels and morale, assigning leaders, and deciding when and how to split forces, where to land them, etc. Likewise, players must play the diplomatic game, declaring wars, securing alliances and royal marriages, negotiating for access to ports and provinces with other nations, etc. All of that is very, very hands-on. At the same time, it makes sense if, in some instances, you lose battles because of random bad outcomes, or if you take higher casualties than expected, even if you win. There is still an element of chance in warfare, and players across the board accept that, I expect. Partially, this is because they're already active participants in the process. Yes, shit happens in war, but they know most of the things that influence the outcome (e.g. morale, terrain, leader strengths, army composition, unit types, etc.), and they have an ability to influence the game world sufficiently that they're willing to accept the random element in the outcomes.
That's not the case with peacetime and in particular with the events. Most of the administration of the realm outside of warfare is pretty hands-off. You aren't constantly fiddling with policies or passing legislation, or adjusting tax rates, or whathaveyou. There's some of that, sure, but it's very hands-off and often very abstract to the extent you do anything. Now, I don't expect or want to have to engage in the level of micromanagement required in, say, Civ IV where you had to keep an eye on which city has this or that production levels, which projects followed each other so as to maximize production output, etc. But a LITTLE more hands-on activity would be most welcome.
One of the benefits of the new monarch points system is that it gives us the POTENTIAL for a level of control and fine-tuned management that was lacking in the slider system. Under the slider system, you basically had to wait around for XYZ amount of time, then you moved the slider one way or the other, making a choice between this set of bonuses/maluses, and that set. Now we get to fine-tune policy with admin points and ideas and such, but I still think we could get to do more. The game could stand to have more concrete, hands-on work for the ruler to do. Deciding policy issues, passing national decisions, etc., all of which could be tied to events, some of which would involve necessary stability drops. Wanna try to centralize the government more by passing some administrative national decision? Awesome! But there's a 50% chance you'll take a -1 hit on stability. And you'll set a flag for further events -- random ones -- which may occur as a result of your new administrative position.
Related to this, I suspect that if players had more control over other portions of the game, (A) the need for a mechanic whereby greater stability means greater likelihood of comets would be decreased -- because you'd have plenty of other things that are ACTUALLY related to player choices that would tamp down stability (assuming the goal is to keep people at around 0 or +1 stab at most), and (B) you could actually get away with other totally random events (Bad harvest! Comet! Locusts! Heir's head asplode!) without people feeling like so many of the events are largely unrelated to the game they're playing.
Basically, give the players more direct control, make their choices have consequences, and they'll accept the randomness more (and you'll need far less of it because player choice consequences will have more impact).
Actually, the 'Comet Sighted' event drops stability by -1, not by -6 as you're implying.
The game design is set up so that stability will tend towards zero over the long term. If you want to keep it higher, you have to spend Admin points. But you can't just make a one-off payment to raise stability then forget about it. You also can't budget a fixed percentage of your points to keeping stability raised then forget about it. Any system whose description contains the words "then forget about it" is a bad system for a game. Instead you are always aware that your stability might drop due to an unanticipated crisis, and so need to have a contingency plan ready for that; but you can also take the risk the event will not come up, and spend those admin points elsewhere. There's more tension, more uncertainty, and thus more excitement and fun, compared to a game where everything runs on rails and is utterly predictable.
The choice need not be between everything running on rails and being utterly predictable vs. the game being totally random and occasionally dropping your stability "just because." There's a middle ground that you and the developers are completely ignoring.
I am pro-random (to some degree), just anti-comet. The thing I hate about comets is they are NOT! random. There is clear connection between your stab and the chance of comet event firing. I hate that.
I agree with the rest of your post though, just didn´t want to copy all of it
No. The comet event doesn't fire "just because", nor is it totally random.
It usually fires because your stability is higher than 1, and the game is intentionally designed to keep your stability hovering around 0 unless you make a conscious and ongoing investment in keeping it higher.
Great.
There's still a better way to accomplish the end goal than the comet event. If you don't agree and you like the comet event and want everything to remain exactly as it is, then we're at an impasse.
Like I said before, I'd be happy if there were more text variations on the event to give -1 stability, rather than just comets all the time. I'd also be fine with having more negative events with choices of outcome (-1 stability or -33 legitimacy, for instance). So no, I don't want everything to "remain exactly as it is".
But your ideas: it seems to me you're arguing that you're happy with random events as long as they're not actually random, and you're fine with unpredictability as long as everything is nice and predictable. Random bad stuff happening is something every real-life government has to face. Not in the sense of "If I do this, there's a chance there'll be bad consequences", but in the entirely random, bolt-from-the-blue sense. Including that in the game is not "lazy design", it's a design that puts you in the shoes of a ruler.
1. The comet event is lazy design because it pretends to be random, but is really just a shorthand for "You increased your stability past 1. We are lowering it because you shouldn't be able to maintain +2/+3 stab in the game." It's also lazy because events like that seem to be more of what the game relies on to maintain its balance, rather than interesting event chains and events directly relating back to player decisions in a clear way, which would require more work to implement.
2. I'm not actually certain where you stand on this issue. Do you view the comet event as random or not? You pointed out yourself how the comet event isn't truly random because it can be tied to a particular player action, namely the increase of stability (and absence of a lvl 3 natural scientist, I'd add). But you also seem to want events that are truly "bolt from the blue" events which I guess includes the comet? Or does it? What, to you, is a truly random event?
To my way of thinking, within the context of the game, an event is "random" if it has a fixed likelihood of happening that is not affected by player actions. I'm fine with keeping those kinds of events. I would've thought that the following paragraph would make that clear:
If it isn't clear from that paragraph, allow me to remove all doubt: I want events like that to be included. Including random events like "Heir falls ill" or whathaveyou does make for a more interesting game. The game, however, would be a LOT more interesting if such events were not the primary method by which stability is reduced, or the player is otherwise held back or disadvantaged. I appreciate the inclusion of those events. I like them. I want them. I do not, however, want that to be the ONLY mechanism by which players are presented with difficulties.
3. Not every bad result need be telegraphed to the player when making a decision. You could have an event chain which starts by the player being presented with a random event, to which the player may select a given response. The response choices describe the immediate consequences, but not the fact that one choice will result in "Flag A" which will lead to a subsequent Event A, whereas the other choice adds "Flag B" which leads to a different event. The point is not about the player being able to predict the long-term consequences of their choices, but rather that the long-term consequences can clearly be tied back TO the player's choice.
To be clear: I am not advocating for the game to tell you "If you pick XYZ, there's a chance the following bad things will happen, which will lead to these other bad things, and then those bad things if you pick this path when we present you with a later choice." That would be absurd and boring. But you can still have future events tied to players' PREVIOUS choices, and still keep the game interesting by including a percentage chance where a given event will pop at all.
To put this in concrete terms, take the "Heir falls ill" event. You can pick "pray" which results in a 75% chance of the heir's death but a +10 gain with the papacy (or whomever your religious leader is), or you can pick "summon a doctor" which costs you 25 ducats but gets you a 25% chance that the heir will survive. If you choose "Summon a Doctor," it could include a hidden flag for an event called something like "Rumors of Witchcraft" if you don't have "Innovative" as an idea group yet. The "Rumors of Witchcraft" would, if triggered, lead to a legitimacy drop of 10 points, requiring a further decision whereby you can execute the physician in question which leads to a loss of admin points (or some other malus) but ends the event, or you can pick "Ignore the rumors" which costs you nothing but includes a 30% chance of -1 stab and -30 legitimacy. But the "Rumors of Witchcraft" event might not even occur -- it'd just be a possibility. You wouldn't know for certain if you pick "Summon a Doctor" at the initial event whether it will happen at all, let alone whether it will trigger negative effects.
You'll note in this example that we still maintain an entirely random, bolt-from-the-blue event ("Heir Falls Ill"), but now the player is actually engaged in decision-making, and other policy decisions may impact that (e.g., having "Innovative" makes the "Rumors of Witchcraft" event dramatically less likely).
Meanwhile, the game could ALSO include events that are triggered by player choices for policies, etc. I think if it did, the game would be a hell of a lot more interesting than it is currently. But that'd admittedly require a lot more work from the devs to write the event chains and connect them to player action, etc. Plus they might actually need to add more specific player actions to connect to the events!