FixedWhy is Russia letting England conquer the world in that picture?
- 1
Paradox Office Multiplayer Campaign V
- Thread starter Groogy
- 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.
Is it supposed to all be green? If you leave only that white rump state as "Russia" you are leaving out very important core regions, like Kiev, and Constantinople.
The joke is that all of Europe will be Russian, except Russia itself
Green is the color of Imperial Russia
Last edited:
- 2
I'm counting on you that you release Byzantium and vassalize and feed it for a maximum of satisfaction.
- 1
so wait is it confirmed that there will be a dev multiplayer tomorrow then?
I was worried the office move might push it back another week
I was worried the office move might push it back another week
Glad I could help. I was worried you were going to just surrender to Wiz!
Pff Mother Russia shall build a bridge to the silly Island Dwellers by dumping the corpses of our enemies in the channel.
- 3
That tactic is legitimately inspired by AI behavior though.
- 3
- 2
It's not, it is commonly used when you want to completely break another player so he can't recover. Just because you can make a correlation doesn't make it the same thing.
- 2
I said legitimately inspired, not legitimately identical
. He just had a bigger length of war modifier it seems.- 2
- 1
Yes? How does that differ from what I said? It is not the same reasoning between players in a MP and an AI against a player just because you see a similar end result.
- 1
AI camping player on length of war and demanding release of nations that have nothing to do with them if getting separate peace carries much the same function, almost as if it's looking to weaken you.
Of course, the real problem here isn't the AI, the human choice to do it, or the inability for unconditional surrender. The real problem is that there is active incentive to camp someone until rebels tear them up, because *by design* that option is preferable.
As Wiz said, "rebels are supposed to be a threat", right? Under what conditions are they more threatening, to the nations that are most rationally threatened by that arcade mechanic? Yes, large nations, like your own. Unlike some of the other players in the game, thanks to war score and other limitations your position couldn't be eliminated in 1 war. Even with the massive camping you ate, you still outlived a smaller nation in the same situation...but that rebel camping provided utility to the player doing it all the same.
The 15 year truces, rebel demand enforcement, camping people at war, upcoming revanchism...these are all responses (by developer or player) to a fundamental design issue. I remember how those 15 year truces were supposed to discourage total war. I also remember pointing out that they in fact did the opposite. They couldn't follow up on your large nation 5 years later, so what's the next most damaging option?
I believe you discovered one answer to that question. Was it a fun experience after all
?- 9
- 4
Can we stop talking about Russia and focus on the real task at hand???
Keeping The Almighty Gotland Free To Rule The World!!!
http://4vector.com/i/free-vector-gotland-vodka_035902_gotland-vodka.png
Groogy play Gotland for us! Make us all proud!!!
Keeping The Almighty Gotland Free To Rule The World!!!
http://4vector.com/i/free-vector-gotland-vodka_035902_gotland-vodka.png
Groogy play Gotland for us! Make us all proud!!!
So you realized you were wrong and are now derailing to my rant from few pages ago just throwing in that it comes from the AI and throwing in some rebels for good measure?
*slow clap* very impressed
If you are here just to do random complaints of your pet peeves, this is not the thread for it.
- 9
- 3
No, I'm pointing out that the design, as it stands right now, very much *encourages* exactly what happened to you. In fact, it's one of the few remaining anti-large nation countermeasures left, and even the AI uses it...in fact many players have experienced the AI doing this rather than human. It's not a reach in any capacity to conclude that this is an *intentional* part of the game's design, since it's regularly happened *and* was intentionally buffed about a year ago. Seeing how effective the result is, regardless of reason, copying to greater effect is expected.
I'm not sure why you feel I'm wrong when you're the one upset over a mechanic that you and presumably most other players knew existed going in, that sees regular use in SP and MP. Someone did something effective to you that was well within the bounds of the rules, no? Nobody likes to be on the receiving end of tactics that lead to their loss, but I'm doubting you could build a rational case that this is more unfair than, say, fully annexing somebody in 1-2 wars, and I'm not seeing a lot of complaints when that happens to someone despite that they were inherently given even less of a fair chance.
- 8
- 4
This is why people get annoyed at Paradox sometimes. It's just rude and unprofessional, all TMIT is doing is putting forward constructive, rational, legitimate complaints about the game mechanics and you respond with stuff like this?
Sure it's not as constructive as it could be, but based on certain design decisions against rational resistance and logical arguments, patience is being worn thin... especially when you and other Paradox employees in the past respond in such an unprofessional manner.
- 7
- 7
Yes you are reiterating my rant from a few pages ago and are switching topic to that when you first claimed players acted this way as inspiration from AI.
Players don't do it because they've seen the AI do it (since the AI has no actual concept of "screwing with you"), players do it because it is beneficial for them in the long run because it makes eating up the other guy easier. Players has gotten this concept from fighting AI or players and winning over the them it's better to completely destroy the other so in a few years later he haven't recovered yet since you control when you peace. The AI will guaranteed peace when it gets what is its strategic goals, the player not so much.
You are now just slapping on the AI argument to it and switching it to fit your view so you can feel right even though your initial comment was off and to add on to it are derailing a thread even though I told you to not to. I already said I am working on fixing it, why do you insist on complaining about it and bringing up your specific pet peeves and ad-hocing it to the issue?
Last edited:
- 12
- 4
The AI certainly will do this to both human and AI alike if you let it, and thus it's expected behavior to use in MP if it's perceived as effective. This meets the standard for inspiration. It doesn't matter what the AI's "reason" is wrt inspiration; simply observing the effects is sufficient. Do you dispute this definition? I'd prefer to avoid arguing semantics if possible. We both know what's happening in-game and we both know that humans and AIs alike do it, for different reasons...but they both do it, hence inspiration.
I made that statement based on personal experience, having observed since pre-AoW days what happens when AI camp each other, then seeing the rules changed so it could be done to human players also. Given the large player base, I doubt I'm alone.
You went on to say this:
If the scope of your argument is that the AI doesn't "think" or have "intention" like a human does for the effect, it's more "statement of fact" than argument, and it doesn't refute my point. However, in this very post you brought up the topic of player motivation. Yes, it is used by players to break each other beyond recovery.
I pointed out that the mechanics both allow for and directly incentivize this behavior, that it does not appear to have been made illegal in this MP game, and that it is no more inherently unfair than full annexing someone who isn't as large and thus can't survive giving away 100% territory. You have yet to refute these points, but they are the reason that a player would conclude that this potentially AI-inspired tactic is legitimate in the context of a MP game without rules against it. Not only is it legitimate, but it is no more unfair than *any* other basic tactic in the game, and no less.
I would not have gone down this path of discussion if you didn't bring up the issue of player motivation. You got camped because the person doing it thought it was the best method given his position, and the game rules both allow and encourage it.
This is not a consistently accurate statement regarding EU IV AI behavior and has not been since I started playing in 1.3...
The AI argument was my first argument. I went on to talk about incentives when you mentioned that the human's line of thinking is different.
Because neither unconditional surrender nor revanchism will change the fundamental incentives driving this situation. At best, you will stop this particular tactic if you consider every possible loophole imaginable (something EU IV doesn't have a consistent history of doing, I cite this game as an example, and given large #people not something easy to do). But it still leaves the issue of "rebels can do this nation more damage than my war score can", and still creates incentive for players to push total war and damage each other beyond war score.
That incentive doesn't have to exist. Wars in this game are costly. This issue would be non-factor if the perceived benefit didn't align with the cost...and once upon a time in MP, players didn't do this because it wasn't worth the cost. Those "pet peeves" you brought up directly altered the incentive structure to the point where players see benefit in doing this. My concern is that I see no way a surrender mechanic will completely address the issue, in SP or MP.
Finally, my intention was not to derail this thread. I continued discussion because you answered me. I continued this discussion in this thread in particular because the game provided a concrete example in context that showcases the frustration of a player under these mechanics, which occurs in both SP and MP (regardless of reason). I believe it to be something fixable, but not through surrender alone, and a game that shows the incentive and the losing player's reaction so clearly is a reasonable place to discuss the action. These are not "random complaints", every single mechanic I called out directly contributes to *why* a player wants to camp someone to ruin them. Hopefully, this also serves to show why this was not a significant issue back in, say, 1.5.
I don't believe I can provide a more in-depth explanation of my position than this, so I'll rest on this argument unless something new comes up.
- 9
- 6