No Ironman. This was a mistake.

[favourites]

View attachment 899630
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

If you don't mind, do tell me why should I, or really, anyone, care? Is there, like, any reason whatsoever? Is there a singular universe, assuming there is an endless amount, in which I would genuinely care if someone cheats for achievements, just like I can in spite of ironman in every other Paradox game or no?

 

[Haakon_XIII]

My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I don't understand why it's so important that only the most purist without mods are able to get achievements, when some are as trivial as unifying Italy or reaching 1936. I myself have some of the most difficult of the EU4 and they mean nothing because they are not the proof that I am a better player, only that I had the time and the motivation to do it, without Ironman I would have done it the same, because it is an objective and rules that I set myself, not the game.

The Total war allow mods, and other games and no ones complain

 

[Skales]

What's up with this community and declaring "No (Mechanic)" or "(Mechanic) was removed" whenever a mechanic is changed? Seriously.

Paradox changes the previous instalment's random factory building algorithm mechanic that was used to represent Laissez-faire into a system where capitalist pops donate into an investment pool which is then used to build buildings. This somehow means they removed Laissez-faire."

Paradox changes the previous game's whack-a-mole cycling minigame into a front-based system with more emphasis on economy. This means all warfare was removed.

Now, suddenly, the Ironman feature, which works exactly the same as in the previous games, except its exclusive association with achievements was broadened so that it is no longer exclusive, now that too was "removed."

You are free to dislike these choices, even think they are objectively bad from the game and should be reverted. But words, have, meaning, and that too applies to the word "remove." So many people these days confuse obtuseness for wit. I suspect the hyperbole is the reason people are so tired of this discussion.

As for an actual solution to this, I think there should be ironman exclusive achievements. Why not? Other games, where achievements are not exclusively tied to ironman modes, often have an achievement like "completely game on ironman." Paradox could make a couple.

 

[Telenil]

A compromise V3 makes!

V3 disables the console unless you use debug mode, and disables achievements in debug mode.

Ah, good. If that's true, I won't go as far as saying I'm happy, but that would make the situation significantly better than I pictured it.

 

[kawamuratc]

I agree on your last sentence. I don't care what people think of my achievement list. But it's for me. It's like your personal "achievement's wall"; yes you can get your PhD by dedication, hard work and a lot of time to recover from you own mistakes or you can get it by paying in an online unknown university.

So one is more valuable then the other because of rarity and the "certification of it" trough an official status.

That drives me always back to the game, to improve myself. But now that you can just modify the games field what is the real struggle?

If this about personal challenge and not some sort of external validation that involves comparing one’s self to others … how are achievements different levels of rare? You have either 0 or 1 of each cheevo.

 

[Soter I]

It was still possible to add in a savegame with ironman thus avoiding ironman for achievements. Couldn't care less.

 

[EUnderhill]

Achievements will only be interesting when not only is Ironman required, but a Euro (or local equivalent) must be staked up front and the achievement sought declared and the first person to get it takes home the pot.

 

[FuscusNight]

No, as someone who has 100% in HOI4 achievements, used to have all CK3 achievements at launch and fair share in CK2 and EU4 , i think this was the right move honestly.

Ironman was faulty, and if you played it legit it just punished you hard if you bumped into technical issues such as save corruptions which I've had plenty off in my years playing PDX games which then leads to making save back ups by copying the save folder, which technically "defeats" one of the points of ironman.

The move to remove ironman was good alongside being able to easily have multiple saves without having to constantly make back ups in case a file goes bad, it also means now big quality of life mods or even overhauls can be enjoyed alongside achievement hunting sessions.

If someone uses a mod that makes it easier, so what ? There's never been rally a "reward" from these things, PDX never gave prizes for earning them and steam has never had any points or whatever if you earn it, you just do it cause it gives you a goal to go after in their sandbox games, a specific challenge when you dunno what to do yourself.

I'd even push it and say PDX should consider even letting people earn achievement in MP sessions , to fully liberate the achievements from constrictions.

 

[Dragula]

Why, what would be the point?

Other than play the game to year 1936 in Ironman, that might be a good achievement, but all other achievements in my opinion should be avaialble regardless of Ironman setting. And even then there should also then be an achievement in playing to 1936 in non-Ironman mode.

Because right now mods exist that unlocks all your achievements when you start the game. I would hardly call that an "achievement".

 

[Haakon_XIII]

Because right now mods exist that unlocks all your achievements when you start the game. I would hardly call that an "achievement".

And who cares your achievements?

 

[grommile]

Because right now mods exist that unlocks all your achievements when you start the game.

They do. And most people will never use one, because most people either don't care enough about hard achievements to cheat to get them, or care too much about hard achievements to cheat to get them.

The other point here is that in CK3 (where the old cheevo policy is still in force) and Vicky 3, the UI modding capabilities of the game have reached the point that "fairness" (and MP stability) requires UI mods to be covered by the checksum.

Some people literally can't play the game without UI mods. Are those people acceptable "collateral damage" for your desire to have the achievement system Fun Policed?

 

[za3tarani]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
What is the purpose of Ironman if I can still earn achievements in non Ironman mode? They are one of the main challenge of every paradox games.

Why removing it's purpose?

I mean having Ironman mode without achievements related to it, is like not having it at all.

i started playing eu4 with ironman just for the achievements. today i always play ironman, with or without mods, simply because the playthrough is more fun, as you have to live with your choices achievements doesnt change it.

 

[Egodeus]

Because right now mods exist that unlocks all your achievements when you start the game. I would hardly call that an "achievement".

Neither would I, but I fail to see how your point changes anything. Even with the old system there exists ways to unlock all achievements without actually getting them in play. Is the achievement you are referring to here that it should require more Google-Fu, rather than downloading a mod out of the Steam workshop?

Because I don't think either makes any sense as an achievement.

@grommile put it perfectly above:

...most people either don't care enough about hard achievements to cheat to get them, or care too much about hard achievements to cheat to get them.

That should be the end of this discussion. If you care about the achievements, don't download a mod that unlocks them, and if you don't care about the achievements, then why to you care if others get the achievements?

Don't police how other people enjoy the game and the achievement system, it is not your place. You should only care how you use the achievement system.

 

[Dragula]

Neither would I, but I fail to see how your point changes anything. Even with the old system there exists ways to unlock all achievements without actually getting them in play. Is the achievement you are referring to here that it should require more Google-Fu, rather than downloading a mod out of the Steam workshop?

Because I don't think either makes any sense as an achievement.

@grommile put it perfectly above:


That should be the end of this discussion. If you care about the achievements, don't download a mod that unlocks them, and if you don't care about the achievements, then why to you care if others get the achievements?

Don't police how other people enjoy the game and the achievement system, it is not your place. You should only care how you use the achievement system.

And how do you know what _most_ people care about? This is such bullshit, pure speculation and guesswork.

 

[grommile]

And how do you know what _most_ people care about?

Humans like thinking of themselves as honest.

Also, we can observe that popular, well-liked games that do not require good reflexes to excel and do not enforce "no mods no savescumming" on achievements still manage to have a range of unlock rates from over 90% for the trivial "did you even play the prologue?" achievements incrementally downward to 1% or less for their hardest achievements.

Informed by the general human desire to feel honest, I feel that "most people either don't care about getting hard achievements enough to want to get them by cheating, or care too much about getting hard achievements to want to get them by cheating" is the most reasonable explanation for this.

If people who cared about getting about hard achievements were routinely willing to cheat, then we would most likely see a much smaller gap in unlock rates between the easiest hard achievement and the hardest hard achievement.

 

[Egodeus]

And how do you know what _most_ people care about? This is such bullshit, pure speculation and guesswork.

And not to sound like an internet troll, but the same applies to your side too. How do you know that _most_ people would want to keep the old system?

PDX is the side that is going to have the best statistics, and they made the call, shouldn't that be enough for all of us, if we care about data so much?

Even in the absence of definite data I would suggest that erring on the side that let's more people to play with the system (the new Vic3 way, where all players can get the achievements how they want) is better than one that arbitrarily restricts the use of the system to a part of the playerbase (only those who are willing to play in Ironman without mods).

The achievements themselves can't be the issue here, as we've established that they can be cheated in both systems, so they don't objectively hold any value either way. So the only value they are going to hold is in your own mind, and for that does it really matter whether you've gained in Ironman mode without mods in a game that forces that, or in one that doesn't? You know personally that you gained them that way.

And if you are using the achievements to evaluate other people, what I'm trying to say is just stop doing that. You should not care one way or the other what achievements someone else has, how they gained them (because you can't know that anyway), nor is it your place to police how they are able to gain them.

 

[trewajg]

I'm sorry guys, but this ease of getting achievements is not just a paradox decision about how much achievements matter and how hard should they be to aquire and such. It's laziness. In imperator and ck3 mods have become more and more restrictive when it regards ironman because most graphics and ui mods modify the checksum. This time around paradox decided just to be lazy and not care about having a sensible checksum and now pretty much anything changes the checksum. And instead of restricting player achievements with any non gameplay affecting mod, pretty much like imperator and ck3, they just decided to allow any mod for achievements and disable ironman. Another consequence of this is that if you host a multiplayer match with any simple graphics or ui mod the checksum will change and you won't be able to.

 

[grommile]

It's laziness.

It's not lazy to say "wait up, we have added so much capability to UI mods that they can no longer be reliably assumed to have zero impact on game balance or MP stability, so they need to be checksummed."

 

[trewajg]

It's not lazy to say "wait up, we have added so much capability to UI mods that they can no longer be reliably assumed to have zero impact on game balance or MP stability, so they need to be checksummed."

What are talking about? Client sided mods that don't affect gameplay have been around for ages and never have I had instability with them. Instead of having a sensible balance on the checksum, every little thing in a mod now changes the checksum. The incompatibility does not arrive from instability. It comes from the checksum, which changes for every little ui mod. What's not lazy here? Couldn't they have both had mods not disable achievements AND have a sensible checksum for multiplayer?

Right now I pop the Sensible Map mod, which just changes the map to look like victoria 2, and I am unable to play multiplayer with my friends. I have never seen a ui mod in eu4 affect checksum, and I usually go for achievements there and multiplayer with tons of ui mods. Never have I seen anyone before complain about checksums in that game. What changed?

 

[grommile]

I have never seen a ui mod in eu4 affect checksum,

EU4 UI mods are, as I understand it, a lot more limited in what they can do compared to more recent Paradox GSG titles.