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

[Dayledose]

I already sacrifice relations, I already sacrifice commitment to the stability of the Empire, I already sacrifice soldiers, I already sacrifice MONARCH POINTS AND TECHNOLOGY, the single most important things in the entire game. Now I'm being asked to sacrifice a little bit more of everything at the same time unless I'm paying some arbitrary conquest tax that doesn't really have much of a reason for existing [having to pay the maintenance costs of armies and forts is not enough?]. Someone remind me, why is that rewarding again?

Because the slider is engaging, I mean you have to ponder long and hard at the peace deal screen trying to figure out if you can afford to take a province due to corruption. Then after you make that decision, you have to open up your financial screen and think about where you need to set the slider so you don't end up in a mana spiral.

Now if that isn't the most fun interaction I've had in EU4 I don't know what is....

Because apparently slow in the beginning = difficulty level increased or better yet paying 10% more mana is challenging.

I'm just waiting for someone to do a live stream or let's play showing that the mechanic can be sidestepped and is utterly useless in the grand scheme of things. Maybe then people will get their refunds and revert back, the Devs will actually have to admit it was poorly implemented and not well thought out and we can put this debacle behind us and make the game fun again.

 

[Dakka]

Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. Though it surely doesn't apply to Technology, right? (Fall behind in tech, gain Corruption, becomes even harder to tech up, gain even more Corruption...)

Anything that costs monarch points has an increased cost, even tech. It's a vicious cycle that you don't want to fall behind in

 

[Axe99]

I'm still finishing off another campaign before hitting Mare Nostrum (which I'm really looking forward to, but one thing at a time), but I really like the general idea of the corruption mechanic (am a little sad it's not linked to mercantilism any more, tbh), but I've always been more of a role-player than a blobber. Could see how blobbers would find corruption a tad painful (although I'd argue it's a relatively plausible painful in theory, no idea whether it works in practice yet so won't put forth an opinion).

That said, as a new mechanic I'm sure there'll be room to refine and tweak it. It would be a shame to lose it, but I like the idea of reducing the impact of corruption on easy, so that blobbers can still blob and people that prefer something like corruption in the game can play at normal/hard. Another option would be a toggle turning it off/minimising it for the player?

 

[oothal]

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.

Increasing challenge and complexity is fine but you also have to increase fun as well. If not then you get discussion threads like this one.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

It hits the non major powers proportionally much harder, which is why people are complaining.

I know.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Here's how you play with this patch, pick France/Eng/Aust/Cast, ignore corruption, wait for wars to start, jump on nation already at war, take clay and ducats, core territory, raise LA, Rinse/Repeat.

Or not. If your goal is just to conquer everything in sight, you'll always be able to do that. There are other interesting ways to play the game.

 

[Noel84]

Or not. If your goal is just to conquer everything in sight, you'll always be able to do that. There are other interesting ways to play the game.

what other interesting ways? Clicking a button that gives you 1 extra stat point in your clay isn't interesting, so don't try that one.

 

[Freudia]

I'm just waiting for someone to do a live stream or let's play showing that the mechanic can be sidestepped and is utterly useless in the grand scheme of things. Maybe then people will get their refunds and revert back, the Devs will actually have to admit it was poorly implemented and not well thought out and we can put this debacle behind us and make the game fun again.

This is Paradox, don't get your hopes up. Paradox's hobby is closing ways to sidestep bad game mechanics rather than address why people sidestep them in the first place.

 

[vipic]

This is Paradox, don't get your hopes up. Paradox's hobby is closing ways to sidestep bad game mechanics rather than address why people sidestep them in the first place.

Thank you for bringing us back around to the intended point of the thread,

The proposition that you can "sidestep" corruption by turning it off in one form or another. Whether that means adding no corruption on easy difficulty or whatnot.

You are not going to be able to "Fix" corruption. In this thread alone there has been all types of critiques of it. Some people hate the tech imbalance aspect, some people hate the religious unity aspect, some people think its fine but its effects are to harsh, some people think there should be non-financial ways of lowering it. You have everything under the sun, you are not going to be able to make everyone happy.

The easiest method is to make an option for corruption on and off in some form or another.

 

[Freudia]

The proposition that you can "sidestep" corruption by turning it off in one form or another. Whether that means adding no corruption on easy difficulty or whatnot.

You are not going to be able to "Fix" corruption. In this thread alone there has been all types of critiques of it. Some people hate the tech imbalance aspect, some people hate the religious unity aspect, some people think its fine but its effects are to harsh, some people think there should be non-financial ways of lowering it. You have everything under the sun, you are not going to be able to make everyone happy.

The easiest method is to make an option for corruption on and off in some form or another.

I can think of ways to fix corruption. I can't really imagine there was a scenario in 1.15 or earlier where the solution was to add a mechanic that punishes things that're already punished. Religious unity was punished by adding revolt risk and all the other things that come with having wrong-religion provinces. Overextension was punished by increased revolt risk across the board and with some incredibly dangerous events when you exceeded 100%. Lagging in tech was punished by not having the bonuses tech confers, which includes things like additional idea groups, administrative efficiency, development efficiency, and new units, and of course disproportionately punishes nations outside of Europe far more than they already are just for playing the game. What problem is corruption trying to solve that wasn't already being addressed in some fashion by game mechanics that already exist?

Furthermore, the implication that 'You have to play on Babby Mode to avoid having to deal with a game mechanic that serves no unique purpose' is insulting to your playerbase, considering that some of the players complaining about it are some of the most talented people playing this game. To insist that they're bad and need to play on easy mode (which is what making it an 'easy difficulty only' option implies) is absurd.

I don't think anyone here who actually wants corruption to be fixed wants Paradox to take the easy way out. Taking the easy way out is not addressing all the long-standing bugs and issues Paradox has left in their game for multiple patches in a row, and look at how that's received.

 

[bbqftw]

If they really wanted diplomatic techs to matter beyond 7 and 23, they could have just split the diploannex part of admin efficiency to diplotech. I wouldn't be a major fan of it (I don't like mechanics that increase the importance of lategame monarch RNG and that is what admin efficiency does) but it would at least be sort of ... logical.

Could also add a BROT/AE modifier to diplo tech as well. In fact, getting punished for being behind in diplo tech with more AE would actually be a very interesting mechanic. Its better gameplay to have to manage coalitions (play wars out better, manage your diplo game) than getting auto-dumpstered because RNG gave you a 1 dip ruler.

 

[Atlantians]

Make it dependant of gouvernment form ( despotic ones reducing corruption but add more bonus to no despotic ones )

Giving certain Government forms advantages with corruption would be a good addition as well.

 

[CDFW]

Giving certain Government forms advantages with corruption would be a good addition as well.

Really there should be ideas that reduce corruption. Similar to inflation reduction.

 

[vipic]

I can think of ways to fix corruption. I can't really imagine there was a scenario in 1.15 or earlier where the solution was to add a mechanic that punishes things that're already punished. Religious unity was punished by adding revolt risk and all the other things that come with having wrong-religion provinces. Overextension was punished by increased revolt risk across the board and with some incredibly dangerous events when you exceeded 100%. Lagging in tech was punished by not having the bonuses tech confers, which includes things like additional idea groups, administrative efficiency, development efficiency, and new units, and of course disproportionately punishes nations outside of Europe far more than they already are just for playing the game. What problem is corruption trying to solve that wasn't already being addressed in some fashion by game mechanics that already exist?

Furthermore, the implication that 'You have to play on Babby Mode to avoid having to deal with a game mechanic that serves no unique purpose' is insulting to your playerbase, considering that some of the players complaining about it are some of the most talented people playing this game. To insist that they're bad and need to play on easy mode (which is what making it an 'easy difficulty only' option implies) is absurd.

I don't think anyone here who actually wants corruption to be fixed wants Paradox to take the easy way out. Taking the easy way out is not addressing all the long-standing bugs and issues Paradox has left in their game for multiple patches in a row, and look at how that's received.

But see this emphasizes the whole point of this thread, you dont think corruption should be implemented at all. I think that all the things you mention wernt detrimental at all. In fact I would actually try to fall behind in admin and diplo tech (After I got administration idea group and influence) unless I had an awsome ruler because it was cheaper to level them later, so I think that tech imbalance is in part the most important part of corruption.

Overextention was basically a nonissue when you can raise autonomy and it never slowed my expansion in the slightest beyond not wanting to go above 100%.

There are people who have vastly differnt ideas on what should be done. If you get your way the mechanic will be removed (I mean if its not hinged on religious unity, tech imbalance, or overextention, there really isnt anything left to hinge it on) but I want the mechanic to still be in the game.

The whole point is that I dont want it removed like you want, which is why im advocating the option to turn it off. I know that you dont like the idea that you have to play on easy to turn it off, but honestly, noone knows so why do you care? If your ego is so important you could just tell everyone you play with it on if you want.

Edit: Ideas and so forth to deal with corruption could be good additions they could be overpowered, I dont know, I suppose it depends on the tree or government type, how much and which things they replace, but its still not going to satisfy alot of people like the guy im quoting who hates all aspects of corruption

 

[Atlantians]

Really there should be ideas that reduce corruption. Similar to inflation reduction.

Good point, like Admin.

 

[brifbates]

Good point, like Admin.

Admin ideas already need nerfed, put it somewhere else. Or, more logically, move expansion back to diplomatic, split admin into admin and (something) and split the admin bonuses up between the two tossing in some stuff like spy defense and some other so-so stuff and remove espionage ideas. Put the espionage idea abilities deep in the diplo tech tree somewhere or just get rid of them.

 

[Dayledose]

But see this emphasizes the whole point of this thread, you dont think corruption should be implemented at all. I think that all the things you mention wernt detrimental at all. In fact I would actually try to fall behind in admin and diplo tech (After I got administration idea group and influence) unless I had an awsome ruler because it was cheaper to level them later, so I think that tech imbalance is in part the most important part of corruption.

Overextention was basically a nonissue when you can raise autonomy and it never slowed my expansion in the slightest beyond not wanting to go above 100%.

There are people who have vastly differnt ideas on what should be done. If you get your way the mechanic will be removed (I mean if its not hinged on religious unity, tech imbalance, or overextention, there really isnt anything left to hinge it on) but I want the mechanic to still be in the game.
The whole point is that I dont want it removed like you want, which is why im advocating the option to turn it off. I know that you dont like the idea that you have to play on easy to turn it off, but honestly, noone knows so why do you care? If your ego is so important you could just tell everyone you play with it on if you want.

Edit: Ideas and so forth to deal with corruption could be good additions they could be overpowered, I dont know, I suppose it depends on the tree or government type, how much and which things they replace, but its still not going to satisfy alot of people like the guy im quoting who hates all aspects of corruption

Unfortunately you're missing the point of everyone that wants corruption removed, they have systems in place to deal with Blobbing, but they don't use them or tweak them, what they do instead is pad a DLC and patch with yet another layer of arbitrary punishment that 15 ( I counted them from the thread) people thought was a good idea.

Tell me why another rule ( which the AI cannot handle btw) is better than adjusting already in place systems? Why do we support EU4 becoming bloated with this crap instead of streamlined and homogenized?

Yes, let's kill the game when backend statistics show the game gaining in popularity with each expansion.

New game does not equal better AI, rather the opposite. The less gameplay changes there are, the greater chance of actually making the AI better. Now admittedly, it's a challenge to keep up with broad DLC changes as well.

I don't disagree on that certain things could be better, but again, it's entirely subjective and neither my or your preferences are automatically better than other people's. The designers need to consider multiple viewpoints.

Just to highlight, Chaingun said the Less changes there are, so why are we so accepting of more changes rather than a better AI?

Honestly I don't think I'm alone in saying I would rather have an AI that challenges me than just have to work around another mechanic that was added because it slows the game down.
The really funny thing is that I've been playing France and not caring about corruption or AE at all, I'm blobbing like no tomorrow, it hasn't slowed me down, it hasn't really stopped anything that it was supposed to, so what is the purpose of the mechanic? All it does is make the AI ridiculously easy as they will get into a few wars, get some corruption, get into debt, then proceed to bankruptcy spiral for the next 50 years. Nothing better than fighting a war where your opponent loses 2/3 of it's troops in the middle. Meanwhile, I'm only 2 years behind on tech, direct coring like crazy and still don't care about corruption. At this point there really isn't much the AI can do to stop me.

I mean now that's a challenge.

I'm going to finish this game, laugh at the Devs sillyness then rollback, if I could get a refund for the DLC I would, but it's been more than 2hrs and steam won't do it.

 

[bbqftw]

Overextention was basically a nonissue when you can raise autonomy and it never slowed my expansion in the slightest beyond not wanting to go above 100%.

I'm not sure what your playstyle is, even with religious you're still looking at one revolt cycle (significant) if you're running 100% OE consistently. With humanist its possible you can avoid the revolt cycle, but the drawback is you actually took humanist, and you pay a steep DIP penalty for that until you take religious or get imperialism.

 

[vipic]

Unfortunately you're missing the point of everyone that wants corruption removed, they have systems in place to deal with Blobbing, but they don't use them or tweak them, what they do instead is pad a DLC and patch with yet another layer of arbitrary punishment that 15 ( I counted them from the thread) people thought was a good idea.

Tell me why another rule ( which the AI cannot handle btw) is better than adjusting already in place systems? Why do we support EU4 becoming bloated with this crap instead of streamlined and homogenized?


Just to highlight, Chaingun said the Less changes there are, so why are we so accepting of more changes rather than a better AI?

Honestly I don't think I'm alone in saying I would rather have an AI that challenges me than just have to work around another mechanic that was added because it slows the game down.
The really funny thing is that I've been playing France and not caring about corruption or AE at all, I'm blobbing like no tomorrow, it hasn't slowed me down, it hasn't really stopped anything that it was supposed to, so what is the purpose of the mechanic? All it does is make the AI ridiculously easy as they will get into a few wars, get some corruption, get into debt, then proceed to bankruptcy spiral for the next 50 years. Nothing better than fighting a war where your opponent loses 2/3 of it's troops in the middle. Meanwhile, I'm only 2 years behind on tech, direct coring like crazy and still don't care about corruption. At this point there really isn't much the AI can do to stop me.

I mean now that's a challenge.

I'm going to finish this game, laugh at the Devs sillyness then rollback, if I could get a refund for the DLC I would, but it's been more than 2hrs and steam won't do it.

All of you keep missing this. I understand that many of you do want corruption removed, so the simple solution that will make you happy and make me happy is to make it possible to disable corruption at the lower difficulty settings, or make it another option all together.

Either way, I get to play with corruption and you dont have to play with corruption or rollback your game.

Edit: Now granted im playing as korea and havnt discovered Europe yet, but Ive been watching a vilanger that has taken over almost all of india and they dont have any corruption. So from what ive seen the ai seems pretty good at handling corruption, Do you have your settings at hard? The ai gets smarter on hard.

 

[Dayledose]

1.16.2 will reduce corruption dramatically on easy.

How about corruption stays in Easy mode and normal/hard has a better AI?

Edit: I try to always play on hard, for some nations it has actually been fun
In my game Ottos are down to 9 provinces, Austria has had to release styria, Sweden is OP and ate almost all of Nov-Mus I have eaten burg (including Pu's) most of castile, brittany and the bottom half of england. All I did was ally someone big, get them in a war and feed them as many provinces as they would take. Then watched them burn and took their clay afterward