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

[Dayledose]

Except it doesn't solve the underlying problem of an actual challenge being added to the game, meh, you know what I'm done.

 

[chochko12]

So to bring this thread back around to its intended purpose. Lets 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 don't want to play with corruption happy and it makes the people who hate it happy.

Why adding a mechanic that has to be voluntary to use when you can fix it/tweak it?

 

[Peachrocks]

Except it doesn't solve the underlying problem of an actual challenge being added to the game, meh, you know what I'm done.

+1. I'm looking forward to seeing a mod called 'Screw Corruption' or something like it and having people get it, and watching it top Paradox's charts.

It's a ROTW Tax for sure which means Eurosheep don't really care which is why they are defending this piece of junk.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So to bring this thread back around to its intended purpose. Lets 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.

Just turn off mechanics that cause you to be full annexed if you roll a 0. That way people who don't like it can turn it off and those who do can leave it on.

Just turn off mechanics that crash you.

Just turn off core cost.

Just turn off...

Actually there needs to be a sensible inclusion criteria for mechanics, or else you can't distinguish nonsense ones from ones that require thought. So, where does an unstable equilibrium mechanic fall? Somewhere higher than camera screw, but lower than actual gameplay. That's not a problem you "solve" with a toggle. If you kept doing that the game would bloat endlessly.

 

[vipic]

Why adding a mechanic that has to be voluntary to use when you can fix it/tweak it?

Because no matter what someone will be unhappy with it. I think the mechanic is fine the way it is. You don't. That's the whole point. If you make it enable or disable we can both have what we want.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because no matter what someone will be unhappy with it. I think the mechanic is fine the way it is. You don't. That's the whole point. If you make it enable or disable we can both have what we want.

The cases levied against it have used more than opinion alone. Can you do so?

 

[vipic]

The cases levied against it have used more than opinion alone. Can you do so?

I have done so multiple times and don't much feel like typing it out again, if you go back and read my posts you will see how I talk about what I dislike about the way the game was before and how this fixes it. It presents a good series of trade-offs you have to consider when expanding.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have done so multiple times and don't much feel like typing it out again, if you go back and read my posts you will see how I talk about what I dislike about the way the game was before and how this fixes it. It presents a good series of trade-offs you have to consider when expanding.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt though .

 

[chochko12]

Without corruption - everyone is happy. With it some people are not, but the role players are because WHAT IS THAT HERESY - OPM Asian minor kills half of Asia before 1550...

 

[Twoflower]

Please, humour me: why is it "fake" difficulty?
As I see it, the "optimal" playstyle so far has always been running at just under 100 % overextension and planning your conquests around it. Lots of people here will argue that the game is a wargame and is supposed to be designed around conquest. It is a legitimate point of view that I happen to not share.
Corruption, as I understand it, is a meta concept that is supposed to represent the strains of an empire that favours rapid expansion over internal stability, of differently put, give countries that evolve more "organically" an advantage.
Rapid expansion, as has been said in this thread, is still a viable strategy. I'm not enough of a numbers guy to judge whether it is still always better than more methodical conquest. It seems to me however that having to make an actual decision on whether you should take all provinces you can in a war or whether you might be better off taking what you can handle corruption-wise adds a strategic layer to the game and makes it less of a hungry hungry caterpillar experience.
All that said, even with it "being a wargame" and all, can anybody tell me why it is inherently "boring" when war does not have to be about conquest? If the game encourages you to refrain from always taking as much as you can, it might just mean more limited wargoals, and actually using options like trade conflict or humiliate. Again, I might be wrong, but this seems to add variety rather than take it away.

 

[vipic]

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt though .

And honestly the cases levied against are just that, opinion. I mean, this is all opinion, like the guy who typed slow =/= difficulty ten times. This whole thread is opinion, your not going to find a "fact" that one way is better than the other.

Which ties back around to my original point, make it enable or disable so no matter your opinion you can have the way you want.

 

[chochko12]

Corruption, as I understand it, is a meta concept that is supposed to represent the strains of an empire that favours rapid expansions over internal stability, of differently put, give countries that evolve more "organically" an advantage.

There is stability in the game and it got penalized from high OE and low RU, so this point is not very valid from my point of view.

 

[Twoflower]

There is stability in the game and it got penalized from high OE and low RU, so this point is not very valid from my point of view.

Stability might be a redundant concept with the introduction of corruption, I am inclined to agree on that. They both represent similar things, and stability is a lot more RNG-dependent.

 

[mursolini]

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.

You complained about a specific number, so I asked why is a specific number a problem. Apparently, that is not what you meant, so why not quit posting nonsense?

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.

Getting to the point where you can dispense with the impact of random rolls is nonsense not applicable to EU4? Let`s get real.

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

I for one, love games where you have to deal with random resource allocation, like card games. It is down to preference weather you like them or not, don`t try to pass that as a universal judgement. Pick the government that allows you to play the way you like, having predictable monarch income (republic) or random (Monachy)

 

[TingJonKi]

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.

can we split hard difficulty and AI bonus' again?

I loved being able to choose which one I wanted or both, playing with AI bonus' just to get these features is no fun

 

[chochko12]

Stability might be a redundant concept with the introduction of corruption, I am inclined to agree on that. They both represent similar things, and stability is a lot more RNG-dependent.

It is and it is not - you have sure stab hit every 30 ish years from your Monarch death.
Also redundant mechanics having direct relation between them is also very poor design choice - i`m talking about the non-existent reduction of corruption by stability and increased missionary strength (that helps reduce the RU).

 

[Xinkc]

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.

Instead of nerfing, how about a rebalancing that takes into account certain ROTW starts that seem to be hit by the Nerf bat due to poor starting religious unity.

I understand things being a challenge, but where is the reward for not having corruption?

Yes, you get events that give temporary modifiers and prestige. In my current Milan campaign, I've gotten an event for +20 prestige multiple times and a +10 Global Trade Power modifier once with both events basically saying they're from my lack of corruption.

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

There are some in the form of events but it would be nice if it gave like +1 Trust with allies every 2-4 years so that increasing it is not just dependent upon favors.

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

I thought that was the point of States and Territories?


Anyways, I'm not of the opinion that Corruption needs to be optional or nerfed. However, like everything else in the game at one point or another, it does need some tweaking. Also, random corruption giving events are annoying and make me want to Falconpunch orphans.

 

[Atlantians]

I like Corruption. I do think the ducat cost needs some reduction, though.

I think being able to buy it down with ADM points might be a useful alternative in addition to using ducats.

Representing the Crown actively and directly weeding out corruption rather than investing the treasury into bureaucrats doing the job for him and his closest advisers.

It would be like using the Secret Service and FBI instead of hiring additional private organizations and advisers to weed out that corruption.

Also, corruption events should be reworks to temporarily increase the 'rate' of corruption gaining, rather than sudden jumps.

 

[Twoflower]

Actually, there are new random events which reward low corruption, so there is that
I don't think anybody is seriously in denial that some starts right now in 1.16 are unreasonably hampered by corruption. For starters, it might be a good idea to remove the connection to religious unity. Low religious unity is hurtful enough as it is/was before.
Having it affect corruption both makes some starts unviable and can unfairly destroy you when the Reformation hits. I remember a recent (1.15) Papal game where I had established a solid foothold in Italy by 1510, then Switzerland and Württemberg became Centers of Reformation and turned almost all my provinces except Rome. Getting through the period all those recently converted modified lasted was tough, but doable. I think adding massive corruption for a low unity I was basically unable to do much against would have felt neither necessary nor logical nor fair.

 

[Dayledose]

Please, humour me: why is it "fake" difficulty?

Last one then it's bedtime.

To me it is a fake difficulty because it will be sidestepped or even ignored (the OE aspect anyway) if you are a certain type of country, western European over 30 provinces. To me it doesn't provide strategic thinking as I won't be thinking "hmm well this province will give me this much corruption" I'll still be looking at OE, RU, AE and the other normal but immediate detriments to my country when making the peace deal.

Will is slow down expansion? Maybe if you're not a Western European nation, but as so many blobbers like to say "XXX is only a number" and that is what it will boil down to, it will be a formula that, someone better at math than me, will put up on the forum or youtube and soon you will have everyone blobbing and doing WC just as before, perhaps only taking more time than before.

So, tell me if this will actually increase difficulty or just make things take longer?

To me difficulty isn't measured in time spent gathering resources that can be produced automatically each month, nor is it a punishment just for the sake of punishment, to me difficulty is something that takes skill to overcome, having a plan you form and have to execute that may or may not work. After "safe" levels of corruption are figured out, it will be ridden just like the 100% OE is now. Will that be more difficult? Maybe the first 5 times you try it, but in the end it's all just numbers and not really anything that can't be worked through.

There has to be risk and reward.

Tell me what is the reward offered by overcoming corruption? What actual benefit does it give you, that the game didn't have before? What does it actually add to the game to enhance game play other than a straight time or ducat sink that only really hurts if you're playing outside of europe?

Finally, will this mechanic make the game fun for you?