Please allow default "friendly" attitude without needing to manually set

[Bibor]

I would also be fine if favors were eliminated completely and you could only promise land.

The player goes to war for three reasons (that often fit into the same war):
1. land
2. money
3. power projection
4. is Florryworry

There's no reason why the AI wouldn't want the same. In my opinion FAVORS should just be ON TOP of offering any of the three above.
For example, I would be fine with X calling me into a war with a common rival if at least I get power projection out of it (i.e. making "humiliate" that also works for me a part of the deal).

 

[bbqftw]

Then you complain when the "wrong" ones gets fixed. The issue in this thread is only an issue if you choose to make it one, and the dev's time would in my opinion be better spent fixing actual QoL bugs.

Well, I complain when wrong ones get fixed poorly (and causing more bugs in the process), as is typically the case.

The thing is I suggest in here a fix that would eliminate the need for wrist pain and also would make the game more difficult.

Also, I cannot really take serious the 'git gud' from someone who finds VH tedious and not the only way to play the game with AIs that don't immediately die/bankrupt when you stare them down.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you want to avoid being called to wars, then uncheck it in the favors screen. You won't get your favors as you are supposed to. Asking for implementing of a system to ease exploiting the game is just silly.

Using a DLC-enabled feature specifically added to the game being called an exploit is objectively false. No rationale you could use to justify such a claim would hold up as self-consistent. It's like saying development is exploitative, and the arguments to support such a notion are identical.

It's poorly implemented, as in the rules dictate it works a certain way yet it's a chore to use it to potential. Like managing 30+ trade routes in civ 6. Optimal, terrible micro, and a UI/game setup that does very little to mitigate the tedium in this case. Religious conversions are the same way.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

Ideally it would be fixed, but if you want to cheese the game you should have to expend the effort.

 

[bly08]

Not sure how this could be considered "cheesing."

 

[Vulkandrache]

Ideally it would be fixed, but if you want to cheese the game you should have to expend the effort.

"Lets make powerfull features annoying to use and have them require loads of inputs and mouseclicks so that people dont want to utilize them to their fullest potential".

Great idea.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

"Lets make powerfull features annoying to use and have them require loads of inputs and mouseclicks so that people dont want to utilize them to their fullest potential".

Great idea.

Are you saying it was fully intended to be used this way with the intention of it being a powerful feature?

Even if you are, I said "Ideally it would be fixed". That is my great idea.

 

[bly08]

Are you saying it was fully intended to be used this way with the intention of it being a powerful feature?

Even if you are, I said "Ideally it would be fixed". That is my great idea.

Considering that attitude affects CtA and the player is allowed to set attitude, I would think the obvious conclusion is that you should be able to set attitude to discourage CtA. That is unless you think the developers imagined an arbitrary number for how often this should be done, as in setting attitude over x times is considered an exploit but x-1 is fine. It's probably reasonable to assume that no such number exists.

 

[Piotrzeci]

as in setting attitude over x times is considered an exploit but x-1 is fine. It's probably reasonable to assume that no such number exists.

I actually think such number does exist. AI nations are usually friendly to few other nations each, so aiming for this "few" is reasonable. It's not prohibited to have a nation that is not you ally, but you don't want to attack it. There is nothing wrong with having a couple of these nations. Just don't overdo it by befriending whole continents.

 

[bly08]

I actually think such number does exist. AI nations are usually friendly to few other nations each, so aiming for this "few" is reasonable. It's not prohibited to have a nation that is not you ally, but you don't want to attack it. There is nothing wrong with having a couple of these nations. Just don't overdo it by befriending whole continents.

That makes no sense. Because the AI doesn't do it, it's considered cheese? The player should be as dumb as the AI?

 

[Brynjar]

Well, I complain when wrong ones get fixed poorly (and causing more bugs in the process), as is typically the case.

The thing is I suggest in here a fix that would eliminate the need for wrist pain and also would make the game more difficult.

Also, I cannot really take serious the 'git gud' from someone who finds VH tedious and not the only way to play the game with AIs that don't immediately die/bankrupt when you stare them down.

Your complaint about the England HRE was only about it being fixed instead of other, newer bugs, not about the way it was fixed.

There is really no need to set half the world as friendly, and it would make no sense to do so unless you want to make the game easier. My guess is that most players are more annoyed by their allies refusing cta than receiving them. For these players your suggestion would make the game a lot easier.

I have never complained about bankrupting the AI being too hard, if anything I have said it was too easy to bankrupt even great powers on VH before 1.23.

You are free to use all the exploits and save scumming you want, but there is no need for the dev's to spend their time fixing stuff that are so boring most people won't exploit it.

 

[Brynjar]

That makes no sense. Because the AI doesn't do it, it's considered cheese? The player should be as dumb as the AI?

If you expect the game to be tuned for players who use maximum exploits and save scumming because the game allows it, you may need to do a reality check. The cost/benefit is just not good enough.

 

[bly08]

If you expect the game to be tuned for players who use maximum exploits and save scumming because the game allows it, you may need to do a reality check. The cost/benefit is just not good enough.

Explain how this is an exploit and what savescumming has to do with it.

 

[Rikissa]

It's not an exploit, this is how the game is designed. You can set your relations to "friendly" and AI won't call you.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

It's not an exploit. An exploit would be something like unlimited manpower, or some of the abuses you could do with time traveling nations a couple patches back.

Spamming any function that gives greater than intended utility/power is cheesing though. There is nothing at all wrong with this in single player, but it is usually patched out of most games.

 

[Piotrzeci]

That makes no sense. Because the AI doesn't do it, it's considered cheese? The player should be as dumb as the AI?

1. It is cheesy, because it uses a flaw of the game. If you don't want to be called into offensive wars then uncheck it via favours screen. The result will be the same and yet you don't get favours. That's the cheesy part. It is obvious that the game is not supposed to allow it, but a player might take advantage of it.
2. The fact that AI doesn't do it is not the reason. I just answered your question. If you want some "fair" number of countries to set as friendly then you can aim for the number AI countries set.
3. Player can do whatever he wants. It is his game. I don't mind if he goes to the gamefiles and disables AI to do a WC on Easy mode as Ottomans. I am against the idea of this thread for one clear reason:
-To me this tactic is cheesy, I agree with people who say that the very option to do that should be changed by Paradox, and the author just asks if it could be done automatically. What next? Maybe the game should make safescums on Ironman.

 

[Brynjar]

An exploit in my opinion (afaik there is no "correct" definition of what an exploit is in games) is using a bug or feature to gain an advantage to an extent that wasn't intended by the devs. You'll have a very hard time convincing me that the devs ever intended the players to set the whole world to friendly attitude to prevent cta, unless they pop in to say so themselves.

Exploits and save scumming basically does the same thing: Trivialise parts of the game in a way it's not intended. Some people will disagree, probably because they have fun doing one, and not the other. I also think most players do at least one of the two, but very few expect the game to be balanced around using them.

 

[Badesumofu]

An exploit in my opinion (afaik there is no "correct" definition of what an exploit is in games) is using a bug or feature to gain an advantage to an extent that wasn't intended by the devs. You'll have a very hard time convincing me that the devs ever intended the players to set the whole world to friendly attitude to prevent cta, unless they pop in to say so themselves.

That's factually what they did allow though, and it doesn't require any tricks or hidden mechanics to do it. What's more, they did put restrictions on what attitudes you can set towards other nations in various circumstances - you can't just set anyone as threatening for example, you can't set rivals as friendly. There's a prima facie case that it is intended that we can do this. You might as well argue that it's not intended that you can declare no-CB wars.

You can argue that it's cheesy. You can't effectively argue that it's an exploit. It's actually preposterous to suggest that it is.

So you're left with arguing that the devs ought to make mechanically powerful features cumbersome to use UI-wise in order to limit their use, and that is a horrible, horrible position to be taking.

 

[Brynjar]

There is a huge difference between not implementing extra measures to prevent something being possible, and intentionally making the UI extra cumbersome. The first is free, the last costs time (money).

It may very well work as intended as it is. If so I believe a big part of that is that it's so tedious, and cheesing the game to such a degree that most people just won't bother, so there is no need to spend time preventing it.

No CB wars is clearly implemented intentionally, and even have specific mechanics which prevents you from using it too freely. Comparing them is just silly.

Where is the line between cheesy and exploit? Was infinite mana cheesy or exploit? The devs didn't prevent it when it was possible, does that mean it was intended?

 

[Badesumofu]

No CB wars is clearly implemented intentionally, and even have specific mechanics which prevents you from using it too freely. Comparing them is just silly.

Setting other nations friendly is exactly as clearly intentionally implemented as no-CB wars are. There are specific mechanics which prevent you from using diplo feedback too freely as well. You just happen to be okay with one mechanic but not with the other.

They didn't just not prevent setting all non-rivals as friendly, they specifically set it up so that you could. Wouldn't exactly have been hard for them to throw in a mutual positive relations check and you can't possibly think they didn't have the foresight to see that it would be used in the completely obvious way that it is currently. But they didn't put in any checks other than not being rivaled.