Question for the Devs: How good is the "average player"?

[NATOaster]

I was discussing the games difficulty recently and the main point that came up as we had both gotten all the achievements was "maybe we're just out of touch". I wanted to pose this question to the devs for when they design systems and such, how much are you expecting players to interact with it, and interact with it positively?

 

[Meka66]

"maybe we're just out of touch"

 

[Meka66]

For a serious answer, it kinda varies for me. I want to avoid noob traps, but I also don't want experienced players to just be clicking through the same few actions mindlessly.

Largely my feelings on it is we have lots of different players who play in different ways. Maybe your goal is to make a large empire, or maybe it's to dismantle someone else's empire, or make a lot of friends, lovers, or just have an interesting story unfold over your character's lifetime. There are lots of valid ways to play the game and it should be engaging to do it in any and all of these ways.

When it comes to like a minmax/empire-building type playstyle, my idea is it should be fun and engaging to build your realm like that, but not necessary. Not every player wants to be fussing over numbers and making the mechanically optimal choices all the time, but some do and that's a valid way to play the game.

Opinions are my own, not indicative of the entire CK design team or an official company stance

 

[Aart]

For a serious answer, it kinda varies for me. I want to avoid noob traps, but I also don't want experienced players to just be clicking through the same few actions mindlessly.

Largely my feelings on it is we have lots of different players who play in different ways. Maybe your goal is to make a large empire, or maybe it's to dismantle someone else's empire, or make a lot of friends, lovers, or just have an interesting story unfold over your character's lifetime. There are lots of valid ways to play the game and it should be engaging to do it in any and all of these ways.

When it comes to like a minmax/empire-building type playstyle, my idea is it should be fun and engaging to build your realm like that, but not necessary. Not every player wants to be fussing over numbers and making the mechanically optimal choices all the time, but some do and that's a valid way to play the game.

Opinions are my own, not indicative of the entire CK design team or an official company stance

Given the fanbase is really broad , maybe it would be good to diversify the playing difficulty by more game rules ?
It would allow everyone to scale the difficulty for themselves and maybe even making some kind of focus: this playthrough will be diplomatic and that - military.
Of course, I understand, that needs rebalancing, so not for the closest update

 

[Meka66]

Given the fanbase is really broad , maybe it would be good to diversify the playing difficulty by more game rules ?
It would allow everyone to scale the difficulty for themselves and maybe even making some kind of focus: this playthrough will be diplomatic and that - military.
Of course, I understand, that needs rebalancing, so not for the closest update

Potentially, it depends on how broad these rules would be. We don't want to end up in a situation where we have so many wildly varying rules that general balance concerns are near-impossible to parse. But yeah, game rules which dictate difficulty wouldn't be out of the question for the future.

 

[Ixal]

How about at least a hard difficulty setting which makes the AI relentlessly stack MAA modifiers in their holdings and play optimal?

Or make governing large realms harder so that successful and thus skilled players face harder and harder challenges?

 

[Breebelbox]

Yes, please!

More optional game rules and most importantly a hard/very hard difficulty would be very much appreciated!

 

[FishieFan]

Potentially, it depends on how broad these rules would be. We don't want to end up in a situation where we have so many wildly varying rules that general balance concerns are near-impossible to parse. But yeah, game rules which dictate difficulty wouldn't be out of the question for the future.

Would you be open to a vassal limit game rule?

 

[Gap_CH]

A general opinion modifier looks like an easy difficulty setting/rule but I'm pretty sure that would have unintended consequences I am not thinking of.

 

[32ndLaw]

Potentially, it depends on how broad these rules would be. We don't want to end up in a situation where we have so many wildly varying rules that general balance concerns are near-impossible to parse. But yeah, game rules which dictate difficulty wouldn't be out of the question for the future.

I feel like splitting "realm stability" between AI and player settings would be a great place to start! The realm stability and recent AI updates can make for huge AI enemy realms but giving the player the same advantage helps them more. If we could be able to set it for max AI stability and minimum player stability I think it would result in a de facto difficulty boost.

 

[Aregodas]

I would not bother with difficulty settings per se; easy, normal, hard... what does that amount for a game like ck3, really? There are too many factors in the game to narrow things down that simplistically.
As some of you have already mentioned, the real answer to provide a tailored difficulty as well as a tailored experience for the intended playstyle for that run (for the same player may want to play two games in totally different ways, I don't believe it is always the case there is a defined playstyle for every player) would instead be to provide many and varied Game Rules (GR for short) with which to modify the game to our hearts content. Settings to change the quantity of limits (like domain, vassals, income...) or things triggering (such as events or war desirability for the AI), settings to toggle on or off mechanics, settings to adjust whether you want to have total control over armies and land development or allow the AI to take over, etc. Ck2 was actually a good example of how this could be done, in truth. Ck3 was lacking a few good options from the get-go, though some have been added since.

By this method any player can decrease or increase the difficulty of the game in the aspects they may find harder or easier to deal with personally; GR also have the added benefit that their inclusion isn't just limited to difficulty management but also playstyle management; the same settings to adjust difficulty may also allow to set up your game for more of a role-play and less of a minmax experience if that is your current jam, or viceversa.

Potentially, it depends on how broad these rules would be. We don't want to end up in a situation where we have so many wildly varying rules that general balance concerns are near-impossible to parse. But yeah, game rules which dictate difficulty wouldn't be out of the question for the future.

On that note, another benefit GRs have: general balance should only be addressed for the DEFAULT version of the rules; in so far as the rest of the rules are concerned so long as they don't break the game (and I mean actually breaking with bugs, not our personal definition of "balance") let it be up to the player to tweak them to their peril. I'm of the honest opinion that the devs have much to much on their plate to also bother with balancing varying degrees of difficulty; now, if you only focus on balancing the default Game Rules settings whilst providing opt-in "potentially unbalancing" game rules, that's another story.

The only real inconvenience Game Rules have is that they do require a certain knowledge of how game mechanics actually work; for a newcomer most game rules are like "What again? I sort of understand what I've just read but I don't really know how it translates into the game until I've tried it so... whatever". To this objection I would say that such an undertaking as this would be (massive GR implementation that is) shouldn't be made with new players in mind. Game Rules are an aside to the game, not the game itself, and only with a certain level of experience can a player really use them with foresight.

 

[vandevere]

I would not bother with difficulty settings per se; easy, normal, hard... what does that amount for a game like ck3, really? There are too many factors in the game to narrow things down that simplistically.
As some of you have already mentioned, the real answer to provide a tailored difficulty as well as a tailored experience for the intended playstyle for that run (for the same player may want to play two games in totally different ways, I don't believe it is always the case there is a defined playstyle for every player) would instead be to provide many and varied Game Rules (GR for short) with which to modify the game to our hearts content. Settings to change the quantity of limits (like domain, vassals, income...) or things triggering (such as events or war desirability for the AI), settings to toggle on or off mechanics, settings to adjust whether you want to have total control over armies and land development or allow the AI to take over, etc. Ck2 was actually a good example of how this could be done, in truth. Ck3 was lacking a few good options from the get-go, though some have been added since.

By this method any player can decrease or increase the difficulty of the game in the aspects they may find harder or easier to deal with personally; GR also have the added benefit that their inclusion isn't just limited to difficulty management but also playstyle management; the same settings to adjust difficulty may also allow to set up your game for more of a role-play and less of a minmax experience if that is your current jam, or viceversa.

On that note, another benefit GRs have: general balance should only be addressed for the DEFAULT version of the rules; in so far as the rest of the rules are concerned so long as they don't break the game (and I mean actually breaking with bugs, not our personal definition of "balance") let it be up to the player to tweak them to their peril. I'm of the honest opinion that the devs have much to much on their plate to also bother with balancing varying degrees of difficulty; now, if you only focus on balancing the default Game Rules settings whilst providing opt-in "potentially unbalancing" game rules, that's another story.

The only real inconvenience Game Rules have is that they do require a certain knowledge of how game mechanics actually work; for a newcomer most game rules are like "What again? I sort of understand what I've just read but I don't really know how it translates into the game until I've tried it so... whatever". To this objection I would say that such an undertaking as this would be (massive GR implementation that is) shouldn't be made with new players in mind. Game Rules are an aside to the game, not the game itself, and only with a certain level of experience can a player really use them with foresight.

The good thing about GRs is that even if you make a mistake and make thing too easy/hard, you can always reformulate the GRs and start over. In this way, you can find the GRs and settings that best suit you. And, best of all, you can experiment with settings and GR, to try all sorts of difficulties as the mood takes you.

 

[Kimlin1004]

There are mods, more game rules and some more game rules. They allow for detailed and granular setup of each game. Allowing the player to set the difficulty as hard as they wish or as easy as they wish and in specific ways. Implementing something like that into the base game would go a long way for those who want a better challenge and for those who want more customization.

 

[Aregodas]

The good thing about GRs is that even if you make a mistake and make thing too easy/hard, you can always reformulate the GRs and start over. In this way, you can find the GRs and settings that best suit you. And, best of all, you can experiment with settings and GR, to try all sorts of difficulties as the mood takes you.

Precisely so. In my opinion GRs are the best way to provide limitless potential to customize the game in a miriad different ways to appeal to our wide variety of players whilst at the same time lifting the need to balance and rebalance different degrees of difficulty after every patch.

 

[KCalo]

As a fairly new, not very good, player what is it you use to gauge how well your game was once you get to the end? In Stellaris there is a running score that rates you against the other empires, but this game is much different. I made it to the end with my dynasty intact. How do you gauge that run through with the next? I enjoy the game and set my own goals, but it seems very hard to compare progress.

 

[vandevere]

As a fairly new, not very good, player what is it you use to gauge how well your game was once you get to the end? In Stellaris there is a running score that rates you against the other empires, but this game is much different. I made it to the end with my dynasty intact. How do you gauge that run through with the next? I enjoy the game and set my own goals, but it seems very hard to compare progress.

It's a Sandbox, and the only "Win" State is to make it to 1453. Apart from that, you can do whatever the heck you want to do. Some folks try to conquer the entire world, others just like to plunk themselves down in their favorite starts and laugh at what the AI get up to. All playstyles are equally valid...

 

[Comrade_Boris]

I feel like splitting "realm stability" between AI and player settings would be a great place to start! The realm stability and recent AI updates can make for huge AI enemy realms but giving the player the same advantage helps them more. If we could be able to set it for max AI stability and minimum player stability I think it would result in a de facto difficulty boost.

I like this, but also sometimes having low realm stability can be beneficial. If you fight a rebellion and crush it (with your ridiculously OP MAA of course) you get tons of free title revocations and/or huge sums of gold in ransoms. I have sadly forced rebellions (by offending a faction for example) in lapses of power gaming to get these. Having a low player realm stability can be cheesable still.

I am more encouraged by Meka's opinion of keeping tunable parameters low such that a good balance state can be achieved. Making too much tunable can make finding a good base experience difficult. Also there are a lot of small changes that can be made to scale back experienced players but not crush new players, some of which I have ranted about in other threads, others are coming in the next patch per this week's DD.

 

[Breebelbox]

I know many people will disagree again but I wouldn't even mind if a hard difficulty just meant that the AI gets some flat boni like better opinion, higher realm stability, more income and more levies or whatever. I'm definitely not an expert on the topic but as far as I know making a really good AI without letting the AI "cheat" is very, very difficult and only very few games have achieved that.

If making a higher difficulty without "cheating" is even possible but would take up too much time and resources, I would be happy with the next best thing. The people who don't like it wouldn't have to use it.

And of course, more game rules targeting difficulty would also be great.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: If a lot of "general purpose" opinion modifiers are reworked into opinion modifiers for specific vassal stances (as mentioned in the recent dev diary), then this alone will probably make the game at least somewhat harder, because it should become more difficult to keep all of your vassals at +100 opinion all the time. Of course it remains to be seen how the balance will actually work out.

Regarding game rules:
-> I agree with the suggestion of splitting up the realm stability game rule by player/AI.
-> I would also suggest to split up the newly announced domain limit game rule by player/AI.

 

[Gap_CH]

As a fairly new, not very good, player what is it you use to gauge how well your game was once you get to the end? In Stellaris there is a running score that rates you against the other empires, but this game is much different. I made it to the end with my dynasty intact. How do you gauge that run through with the next? I enjoy the game and set my own goals, but it seems very hard to compare progress.

I set goals related to achievements, history, or unique decisions available in the game. When I reach them I start a new game.
The 2 worst were a world conquest and mother of us all. It's not as fun once you become too large so embracing the characters and setting RP goals is generally better.
Oneproudbavarian's Basque campaign is a fun inspiration for the RP side