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

[Dakka]

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.

Corruption affects monarch point costs, not your income. The only thing it does to your income is take part of it to keep it down.

 

[vipic]

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?

So now your dumping a huge amount of your income into crushing your corruption which is the whole point. There are tradeoffs, Either way it will be more challenging than before.

But that's the point of the original post if you don't like it, turn it off, otherwise let the people who do like it play with it.

 

[vipic]

Look, you guys arn't going to convince me to hate it. I am enjoying the corruption mechanic. The point of this post was not to try to debate the merits of it, but to point out that there should be an option to enable/disable it rather than just nerf it.

 

[Freudia]

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.

The game was more RNG-filled, not necessarily harder. Pre-national focus was like, you could give two players the same starting position and they could have drastically different outcomes based purely on things entirely out of their control. One player's ruler dies instantly, the other lives forever; one player gets a 6/6/6, the other gets a 1/1/1. National focus helped mitigate the damage rolling poorly did, and it was a welcome change.

Regardless, that's beside the point. I do think corruption should be nerfed, but Johan thinks otherwise. He's welcome to do what he wants with his game; it's his, after all, not mine.

 

[Noel84]

So now your dumping a huge amount of your income into crushing your corruption which is the whole point. There are tradeoffs, Either way it will be more challenging than before.

But that's the point of the original post if you don't like it, turn it off, otherwise let the people who do like it play with it.

Why would I waste money as a large blob on controlling corruption? By the time it will start having major consequences I'll have thousands of development anyway and be unstoppable, so at worst it will just slightly slow my expansion, and as I said earlier slow=\= difficult.

 

[vipic]

Why would I waste money as a large blob on controlling corruption? By the time it will start having major consequences I'll have thousands of development anyway and be unstoppable, so at worst it will just slightly slow my expansion, and as I said earlier slow=\= difficult.

Ahhh I see, your saying that the corruption doesn't make you go slow, but slow does not equal difficult. You realize what your saying makes no sense at all right?

 

[Noel84]

Ahhh I see, your saying that the corruption doesn't make you go slow, but slow does not equal difficult. You realise what your saying makes no sense at all right?

No, I'm saying that if I can ignore it altogether, and it's only effect if I don't ignore it is soaking me down a little bit

 

[vipic]

No, I'm saying that if I can ignore it altogether, and it's only effect if I don't ignore it is soaking me down a little bit

Exactly, that's the whole point, if you do ignore it your going to be far weaker than if you addressed it and if it grows out of control your expansion is going to be for naught. Eventually, you're going to have to spend a substantial portion of your income dealing with it. It presents trade-offs which is the whole point.

Anyways, that's the point of this thread. If you don't like corruption you should be able to turn it off not that corruption should be modified.

 

[Dayledose]

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.

While I can aggree with you about the game needing some challenge added, I cannot aggree that this patch adds it, to me these mechanics aren't challenges to be overcome, they are annoyances that will be sidestepped.

 

[bbqftw]

nothing says "skill-based game" like making monarch admin rolls more important in every patch

 

[Noel84]

Exactly, that's the whole point, if you do ignore it your going to be far weaker than if you addressed it and if it grows out of control your expansion is going to be for naught. Eventually, you're going to have to spend a substantial portion of your income dealing with it. It presents trade-offs which is the whole point.

Anyways, that's the point of this thread. If you don't like corruption you should be able to turn it off not that corruption should be modified.

Far weaker? Who cares if my thousands of development aren't being fully utilized, I'm still by far stronger than any opponents. And it's definitely not difficult to conquer with corruption, so far it's been easier for me (although that may be due to the Lithuania nerf) so even if I did for some reason deal with corruption it would just slow me down and not provide a challenge

 

[Mewtini]

I'd personal be more favorable to corruption if they gave you bonuses to not having any, as opposed to tons of penalties for having the slightest bit of it

 

[mursolini]

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

Why? How have you came up with a number that is right from game design perspective, and what is it?

nothing says "skill-based game" like making monarch admin rolls more important in every patch

Use your skill to become a republic if you don`t want to deal with random rolls, random PUs and such. What is the problem?

I'd personal be more favorable to corruption if they gave you bonuses to not having any, as opposed to tons of penalties for having the slightest bit of it

Then, they would have to nerf the game base line, since the entire point was (presumably) to limit the resources available to huge states.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why? How have you came up with a number that is right from game design perspective, and what is it?

In a strategy game, the idea is to make player choices matter. Nerfing nations in a way where player choice matters less is a skill equalizer, that lowers challenge and makes skillful vs crummy play more similar in outcome.

What number is right? No number is right. When you have something that penalizes the player for being behind in resource x by making him more behind in same resource x, you have a textbook example of "unstable equilibrium", fake difficulty 101.

The corruption mechanic, as implemented, is broken *by design*. You can make its impact huge or negligible, and so long as it's directly contributing to unstable equilibrium, there is no right value.

Use your skill to become a republic if you don`t want to deal with random rolls, random PUs and such. What is the problem?

It would useful to give advice that is applicable to EU IV, rather than nonsense that an overwhelming majority of the game's tags can't feasibly do in the first 100-150 years.

 

[Noel84]

Why? How have you came up with a number that is right from game design perspective, and what is it?

Use your skill to become a republic if you don`t want to deal with random rolls, random PUs and such. What is the problem?

Then, they would have to nerf the game base line, since the entire point was (presumably) to limit the resources available to huge states.

The fact that monarch admin rolls are so important? Your argument is like saying "sure that house has a hole in the wall, is filled with spiders and is covered in poison, but it's fine because you can just move to a perfectly fine house" the awful house (monarchies) is still awful, the fact that switching away is so obviously better is proof of bad design

 

[Atlantians]

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

Corruption won't be nerfed.

 

[Peachrocks]

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.

Yes because punishing things that are ALREADY punished is good design. Inflation, war exhaustion, religious unity, separatism all make sense, this does not. It just means you get to do x percentage less things then you could before.

Seriously Johan what the hell? Try playing QQ and justify the mechanic then. You are going to come down from your palace to explain this grand design choice to the peasants and 3 year olds trying to understand algebra because we will not accept cake. I will be looking for a mod that disables this mechanic because it's utterly pointless and I almost never resort to mods for anything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Not that I have high hopes. Corruption is a deliberate fake difficulty mechanic and that reality was known and ignored long before today.

 

[chochko12]

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.

Personal unions got limited for Christians only. Every competent expander balances his new territories between coring himself and feeding vasals.

 

[vipic]

So to bring this thread back around to its intended purpose. Lets solicit paradox to make corruption an option you can turn off on the easier modes of difficulty, or a separate option altogether so that those of you who don't like it don't have to play with it.

Edit: I mean that solves all the problems, it makes the people who want to play with corruption happy and it makes the people who hate it happy.