Please dont nerf corruption, Add the option to turn it off

[vipic]

I for one love the new corruption mechanic. The game was far to easy before, you could just blob unless you were playing as one of the few one provence states like Byzantium, Theodora, or Cypress, but once you've played and blobbed as those it loses its luster (There is only so many times you can play as cypress). The new corruption mechanic prevents things I thought were kinda silly before. Like the fact that I could fall behind 10 admin techs and go "Well screw it, ill catch back up later when its cheap." It doesn't stop blobbing, you can still blob, your just going to have to fire you're advisors, scratch all your forts, and make big vassals (risky) to hold your land while you recover the various techs, so there is actually some sort of trade off and it provides an incentive not to fall behind 10 techs in admin and diplo.

What I don't want to happen is the corruption mechanic to be nerfed to nonexistence because everyone on the forum is going nuts about how it made the game more difficult for them and they now have to expand slow (Which you don't have to do, you just have to be ready to sacrifice half your income toward lowering corruption while you expand fast, its an added challenge). So to that end please provide an option to turn the corruption mechanic off to provide for those users who hate it.

If its nerfed to oblivion it ruins it for those of us who want the extra challenge in a game. You're never going to be able to please everyone, so let people choose what options they have turned on and off.

 

[keynes2.0]

I'm not sure if it's quite right but it's nice to see paradox working in this direction for a change.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Paying half your income in corruption for existing is not good design.

 

[Johan]

Corruption won't be nerfed.

Since we already moved most important AI features to hard difficulty only, it might be a good idea to disable corruption, inflation and other such features that make the game more challenging on easy difficulty.

 

[Ilyasviel]

Since we already moved most important AI features to hard difficulty only

Which features are those?

 

[Noel84]

I for one love the new corruption mechanic. The game was far to easy before, you could just blob unless you were playing as one of the few one provence states like Byzantium, Theodora, or Cypress, but once you've played and blobbed as those it loses its luster (There is only so many times you can play as cypress). The new corruption mechanic prevents things I thought were kinda silly before. Like the fact that I could fall behind 10 admin techs and go "Well screw it, ill catch back up later when its cheap." It doesn't stop blobbing, you can still blob, your just going to have to fire you're advisors, scratch all your forts, and make big vassals (risky) to hold your land while you recover the various techs, so there is actually some sort of trade off and it provides an incentive not to fall behind 10 techs in admin and diplo.

What I don't want to happen is the corruption mechanic to be nerfed to nonexistence because everyone on the forum is going nuts about how it made the game more difficult for them and they now have to expand slow (Which you don't have to do, you just have to be ready to sacrifice half your income toward lowering corruption while you expand fast, its an added challenge). So to that end please provide an option to turn the corruption mechanic off to provide for those users who hate it.

If its nerfed to oblivion it ruins it for those of us who want the extra challenge in a game. You're never going to be able to please everyone, so let people choose what options they have turned on and off.

There is no challenge whatsoever from corruption. ALl it forces you to do is slow down your expansion for decades while you increase your admin tech, which slows down expansion. Slow =/= difficult

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Corruption won't be nerfed.

Since we already moved most important AI features to hard difficulty only, it might be a good idea to disable corruption, inflation and other such features that make the game more challenging on easy difficulty.

Rather than "nerfing" it, it would be better to see it represent something other than a ROTW nerf and an unstable equilibrium mechanic. From a design perspective, what "problem" was it implemented to fix?

"You have to pay 50% of your income without overextension or RU problems because you westernized" does not strike me as something that is incentivizing behaviors well. But the worst part of all is that "tech deficit means your penalty is money or...even more tech deficit!". Weren't things like 15 year truces, revanchism, and unconditional surrender (things I didn't agree with because they protect blobs exclusively) implemented exactly to combat spirals?

 

[vipic]

There is no challenge whatsoever from corruption. ALl it forces you to do is slow down your expansion for decades while you increase your admin tech, which slows down expansion. Slow =/= difficult

So, you dont have to slow down your expansion for decades if you are willing to sacrifice a percentage of your income to combat corruption. Keep in mind, there are other ways of expanding as well. You can expand via vassals/personal unions to hit diplo instead of admin. You can now take territories instead of making them full blown states to cut the cost in half of taking territory if you want to level your admin and still expand a bit. If your willing to fall behind in military and diplo tech by a level or two that also increases your expansion capability.

Once again, it comes to trade-offs, you still have options, you don't have to be full tech in everything, if your willing to fall behind you can expand more which might be worth it.

Edit: Think about it, so your two levels behind your neighbors in military tech, that gives you potentially two more levels in admin tech you can fall behind. Now you, in addition, are willing to take on a level or two of corruption, you can still be 6 levels behind your neighbors in admin tech, that isnt going to delay your expansion by "Decades" it just forces you to make tradeoffs to do the same level of expansion.

 

[Noel84]

So, you dont have to slow down your expansion for decades if you are willing to sacrifice a percentage of your income to combat corruption. Keep in mind, there are other ways of expanding as well. You can expand via vassals/personal unions to hit diplo instead of admin. You can now take territories instead of making them full blown states to cut the cost in half of taking territory if you want to level your admin and still expand a bit. If your willing to fall behind in military and diplo tech by a level or two that also increases your expansion capability.

Once again, it comes to trade-offs, you still have options, you don't have to be full tech in everything, if your willing to fall behind you can expand more which might be worth it.

So my choices are:
Get so big that I can have massive vassals that won't rebel
Wait decades to recover admin
Go bankrupt

Great choices (also, please explain to me how I can run a -34 deficit with no advisers or forts and not go bankrupt)

 

[Freudia]

Great choices (also, please explain to me how I can run a -34 deficit with no advisers or forts and not go bankrupt)

Obligatory 'defund your army', which ignores the fact that your army is probably the single most important thing in the entire game. Given that this is, you know, a wargame.

 

[Noel84]

which ignores the fact that your army is probably the single most important thing in the entire game. Given that this is, you know, a wargame.

and also ignores that at that point I'm both losing most of my income and waiting decades for my admin to catch up (because what else would I do with no army?)

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I don't understand the point of Corruption at all. If you don't keep it down, you lose money due to the penalties. However, keeping it down costs money. Either way, it's just picking your pocket.

 

[Siggerad]

Again this is a discussion between people like Vipic who likes sit in a small realm and other people who likes empires, never gonna be a conclusion.

 

[Noel84]

Again this is a discussion like Vipic who likes sit in a small realm and other people who likes empires, never gonna be a conclusion.

other than adding actual challenges (as opposed to just time blocks) to blobbing to make the blobbers happy and add internal management to make tall players happy

 

[Ninaran]

Is there at least some thought to not make corruption such a big deal for tiny nations? Mzab for example has to pay 25% of their measly income right away due to 50% RU. Or was Mzab just that strong of a nation that it needed some more challenge?
I didn't have time yet to really play much, but I imagine the reformation being a serious nightmare for the smaller nations now. Basically gives them no real option but to switch right away due to -100% missionary strength for like 25 years..

 

[vipic]

and also ignores that at that point I'm both losing most of my income and waiting decades for my admin to catch up (because what else would I do with no army?)

Once again, you don't have to wait decades to catch up. You just have to let your military and diplo techs fall behind. You potentially have quite a few levels to make use of than. You can drop behind two levels of military tech and that gives you two more levels of admin tech. So potentially than you can be behind 4 levels of admin tech, now lets say your willing to take a few levels of corruption on top of that and sacrafice your income. Your looking at a potential 6 or 7 levels you can still be behind in admin. You just have to be willing to make tradeoffs for that.

 

[vipic]

I'm not a small empire player, I just don't think you should be able to make a huge empire without making tradeoffs for that huge empire throughout the game.

Edit: Thats the whole point of this thread. If your a fan of easy blobbing you should be able to do that. If you want more of a challenge you should be able to turn corruption off.

 

[Dayledose]

The problem I have is that the latest dlc and patch limits the players more in their gameplay options than it adds to them. I understand things being a challenge, but where is the reward for not having corruption? What actual gameplay options is corruption improving or adding that weren't there before? How does this mechanic add to the fun of the game?

This is something I would honestly like to know, at what point do you as a player think "You know what would be great? If somehow there was an arbitrary penalty that the devs forced on me so that my playstyle was limited to only doing it a certian way." Many people say this is a sandbox, well if it is, who cares how you and I play in that sandbox? Why is everyone so concerned with blobbing? If the devs add in some features for playing tall, do you think the map painters would be up in arms calling for a nerf? I wouldn't because it expands the gameplay options.

I just wish they would pick a playstyle to cater to and make it fun, because all this trying to balance things and limit options is not fun for me in the slightest, after all shouldn't a game you play be fun?

 

[Noel84]

Once again, you don't have to wait decades to catch up. You just have to let your military and diplo techs fall behind. You potentially have quite a few levels to make use of than. You can drop behind two levels of military tech and that gives you two more levels of admin tech. So potentially than you can be behind 4 levels of admin tech, now lets say your willing to take a few levels of corruption on top of that and sacrafice your income. Your looking at a potential 6 or 7 levels you can still be behind in admin. You just have to be willing to make tradeoffs for that.

Or I could use that mil tech that you're suggesting I ignore to crush all my threatening neighbors early and blob uncontrollably, while corruption is either just a major annoyance or a time block. See my point about no challenge being added?

 

[vipic]

The problem I have is that the latest dlc and patch limits the players more in their gameplay options than it adds to them. I understand things being a challenge, but where is the reward for not having corruption? What actual gameplay options is corruption improving or adding that weren't there before? How does this mechanic add to the fun of the game?

This is something I would honestly like to know, at what point do you as a player think "You know what would be great? If somehow there was an arbitrary penalty that the devs forced on me so that my playstyle was limited to only doing it a certian way." Many people say this is a sandbox, well if it is, who cares how you and I play in that sandbox? Why is everyone so concerned with blobbing? If the devs add in some features for playing tall, do you think the map painters would be up in arms calling for a nerf? I wouldn't because it expands the gameplay options.

I just wish they would pick a playstyle to cater to and make it fun, because all this trying to balance things and limit options is not fun for me in the slightest, after all shouldn't a game you play be fun?

The problem is that they have been adding far to many game play bonuses like you say. The estates were supposed to be a penalty but they just turned into an easy way to get zero tax, manpower and trade autonomy in your newly conquered provinces. The game was much harder when it was released before you got things like national focuses and such (And nerfed rebels, which got rebuffed, kind of). They needed to add more challenge which is what this patch does.