It works well in the context of EU4, in the sense that it "fits".
However, the mechanic itself could be VASTLY improved. IF it changed it would mean that a great game just got better, not that a crap one becomes great.
Paradox: please change the way of boosting stability!
- Thread starter johnymathias
- 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.
It works well in the context of EU4, in the sense that it "fits".
However, the mechanic itself could be VASTLY improved. IF it changed it would mean that a great game just got better, not that a crap one becomes great.
If I'm a Catholic nation of medium or large size, then +2 or +3 stability is my default position. Spain with the Pope as vassal is almost entirely with +3 stability.
As for stability in general, I agree that it's a silly mechanic that is neither really fun, nor historical, and is a fake choice when it is not simply irrelevant.
I have to say, many problems raised here goes for most things you use MP on, of course. I cast a spell, and my inflation (Nevermind that the inflation mechanic ingame is pretty arbitrary) goes away. I cast another spell and my people are no longer tired of war. I cast a spell and my technology increases.
I don't think the stability mechanic is the problem here, really. It's just one of the worse and more obvious offenders.
Mana Points (MP) is aptly named indeed!
Its kind hard to change from the current system to one like in EU2/EU3. The whole revolt system, conversion, disaster system, and a bunch of other things are entirely effected by it. To change it would mean having to change a lot of values regarding that which means a lot of playtesting and if the system ends up really harsh and bad due to lack of playtesting some random small nations or Asian nations (as its supposed to fit every nation not just Fance/UK/Russia/Ottomans/Spain/etc. unless they want to make different rebel system for every country) harsh everyone would end up pissed. I mean everyone was super pissed when the new system broke Japan (and I'm not even sure if its still fixed) and China; and I already personally hate 14 stack rebels appearing in countries like a 3 province Papal States when your FL is 10 (and can only really afford 7), which can really only be prevented by keeping your tab and stability high.
Last edited:
it is not too difficult to hit +3...
(1) could be ahead of Adm tech, no further Adm ideas to invest, not enough cash to sink Adm points, so you go ahead and +1 from +2 to +3
(2) you are at +1 stab, and a +1 stab event pops up, you invest in +1 stab to go from +1 to +2, and then the event takes you to +3
I try to take advantage of #2 when the opportunity arises.
I don't play with +3 Stab generally (unless I'm converting or after a war) as it actually increases the chance of dumb stab harming events.
I don't think so, that everything must to be changed so diametrically. Of course, probably there will come some balance issues with that change... but seriously, for what all modifiers for negative stability was introduce to the code of the game? For never be used? This is obviously, that country with -3 stability suppose to have problems. But if the country could arise from -3, for example, to 0 stability in three years, that will be disaster? Now is possible go from -3 to 0 in one day, so there is now countries with real internal crisis.
I add my voice in support of your proposal.
Regardless of rising stability costs, change should be gradual, like e.g. 1 stab per year.
I think stability costs should vary with country size like it did in EU3.
My idea is that you don't directly invest adm points into stability, but rather, your leader gradually fills up a stability bar based on their admin stat (or a combo of the three), and the country's stability increases once the bar is filled. Larger countries, and countries with already high stability have a larger bar to fill, and will take longer.
Just a passing thought that would go along with the idea presented by OP.
My idea is that you don't directly invest adm points into stability, but rather, your leader gradually fills up a stability bar based on their admin stat (or a combo of the three), and the country's stability increases once the bar is filled. Larger countries, and countries with already high stability have a larger bar to fill, and will take longer.
Just a passing thought that would go along with the idea presented by OP.
After 520hrs of play i gained +1 stab from the comet for the first time, with the natural scientist <3 (wich now i tend to always took XD)I like the current system
Makes conversion possible now
Also, didn't there used to be an event that made the cost of Stability 3 pretty much ridiculous because this event would fire so often and take a point away?
I haven't seen it in a wh-
OH GOD!
This is definitely not ideal. If you have about 500 ADM saved up (not uncommon) you can get back into decent stability in the very same day, which surely isn't WAD.
Well I agree it would be a hell of work fro the devs to redo such a mechanic but it would also be really interesting how it pays out. So I support the idea, just waiting for a definitive answer from the devs although I think it will be redone one day. Just look at disasters we got for 1.9 and which should be expanded (said Johan in another thread) for 1.10. It takes time but it will be there someday 
Actually, I see the point of the stability mechanism is that you base your decision on your stability cost. For example, if you want to break truce a lot then you want Religious for cheaper stability and not a republic at 20 tradition. You decide to stay at stability 1 and you can afford to choose "stability - 1" for bad events, or you decide to stay at stability 2 but you have to be careful in dealing with bad events, etc.
I had a rather extensive suggestion I made some time ago that limits a lot of the collateral damage:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?791376-Stability-could-be-a-more-dynamic-thing!
I really like the suggestion that boosting stab should be a process, just seems wierd that you can essentially "buy" yourself out of any stability-crisis with adm. points at a moments notice. Maybe stability could even be made into a pure process in the sense that the player do not pay monarch points at all to gain stability, rather stability automatically ticks up at a certain rate, which policies/tech/ideas can influence, and then we still have the occasional stability-hits (and free stability events), this would also have the effect of creating certain stability equilibria depending on the rate at which stability ticks up.
There's practically zero compelling gameplay reasons given for this proposed change, except that its not "realistic" (of which there are many game mechanics like that).
Its practically change for the sake of change.
Why not buff Serbian ideas instead?
Its practically change for the sake of change.
Why not buff Serbian ideas instead?
this is because the AI prioritizes boosting stab even when it's a horrible idea.
I don't want to be rude, but do you even play this game? I can't imagine that anyone who's watched Indian Sultanates, Poland, Lithuania, the hordes, Ottomans (via Harsh Treatment spam) or Scandanivians self-immolate could think that power levels are anything but static.
Last edited:
Well, the fact that you can get out of poor stability, whether caused by bad luck or bad play, with two mouse clicks is kinda boring, which is the point of this thread.
After slightly more thought, what I really don't like about my suggestion is that it simply adds another "sit back and wait for the bad stuff to go away" mechanic - the game definitely doesn't need more of those. Decaying maluses don't give the player anything he can do to fix his country, other than waiting for it to fix itself. That's arguably even more boring than fixing it with a mouse click.
I agree that stability is a bit too easy to increase right now, at least for large empires. It makes no sense for neither game balance nor realism, that the stability cost for a world spanning empire is the same (or lower) as for a OPM. Especially as the benefits gets better the larger you are. I realise that larger nations also get hit harder by negative stability, but it still feels unbalanced right now. I would like to see increased stability costs for higher tax base nations, and maybe lessened effects from negative stability.
Time limits also makes sense, but I would rather have a soft cap like increased costs for consecutive increments. Let's say for raising again within a year. Maybe +100% times the fraction of a year since last increase (so 6 month = +50%).
Time limits also makes sense, but I would rather have a soft cap like increased costs for consecutive increments. Let's say for raising again within a year. Maybe +100% times the fraction of a year since last increase (so 6 month = +50%).
So for what stability exist? For what exist modifiers for negative stability? When almost all countries are in level +1 or higher? So will be better change all stab-hits events and other stuff to adm points penalties. There will be no difference. Each aspect of game suppose to give the player fun or challenge or feeling of realism. The stability for me suppose to give some challenge and realism, now that is lifeless number.
But what the difference will be if stability will recover for example +1 point during the 1 year? AI still could stabilize like do the same now, but the effect of that will be not immediate. So sometimes there will be a few years with negative stability in a country (AI or player, whatever). Is this so 'horrible idea'?
That countries have some historical events with bigger problems than others. But much more countries haven't something like that. And I didn't say that powers of countries are static. But now usually change are done just by wars, historically a lot of countries get more internal problems, which cases wars started by opportunist neighbors.
I don't think so, that will be so boring. For example now if you wont to change form of government, what do you do?
1.Collect ADM points
2.Choose new form of government.
3. Boost stability from -1 to +2 in one day...
So for what stability exist? Why the cost of changing government wasn't just 400 ADM points? You can do that change even after the most devastating war, because you never will suffer from low stability!
If recovering suppose to take some time you must to choose moment of changing government more carefully, and if your enemy will attack you then, you could have more problems with that, especially if recovering will be slower at war.