The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions

[gdj]

Seriously? You're going to talk about laughingstock walkover wars where your biggest threat is overextension, and not treasure fleets or actually playing as the natives, or custom nations ?

When you start a native American nation yourself, sure

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When you start a native American nation yourself, sure

El Dorado added more for the natives than the colonizers IMO. Too bad they added an extra 50 years of waiting in 1.12 to kill that utility, but Inti and especially Nahuatl have solid reform ideas to manage (Mayan is pretty uninspired, it's not very unique to do the exact same conquest 5x in a row with nothing to manage). It was actually fun to play there, in 1.11, when you weren't guaranteed to spend 1480 - 1550 as the only independent nation in reach and no ability to interact with Europeans in any meaningful capacity. That came later.

 

[Thrake]

As it stands, especially with common sense, no-one (serious gamer and/or minmaxer, not roleplayer) ever has them enabled so you can't really get an idea for how to play with them from other good players.

What's a "serious player"? Someone who wants an achievement the easiest way (and show off how he did it the easy way lol) even if at the expense of gameplay?

 

[vfmikey]

That's a sad statistic, it basically implies that only 16.8% of people who bought EUIV actually bothered to play it.

It took me over a year and around 200 hours to get that achievement.

 

[zeredek]

This is largely because development is an absolute non-starter for a good player, they will never have any points to waste on it.

If you're saying Paradox should buff development, I completely agree

 

[SolSys]

I'm pretty sure you can still do manual exploration with El Dorado enabled. You just leave the auto-explore off and click a destination within unexplored regions you want it to go to.

You have a choice only on land, but not at sea.

 

[RELee]

I'm sorry, I didn't get the reference

Don't be sad. I have a warped sense of humor. You should be forgiving me. But I do remember people complaining about, I don't know, the AI not playing properly without having Steam enabled or something. Not sure. I've slept since then.

Not unless "offline" means literally no internet connection. Even without Steam running the game sends stats to Paradox.

Ooooooh! That really gets me steamed!

Seriously though, it's kinda spooky. I may have to go back to setting up whatever that seriously good firewall program was that I used to have. Sending statistics without my knowledge? Do the older games do that as well? Have I been sending statistics back to PDS for years without realizing it?

I may have to do some serious thinking here. I need some aspirin first though.

 

[sparta105]

Um... Am I the only one who finds this discussion pointless? If you need the disable a DLC for an achievement then you clearly need more practice with said DLC. The game is not designed to have impossible achievements and if you do find one, try changing your strategy and approach.

EDIT:

That's a sad statistic, it basically implies that only 16.8% of people who bought EUIV actually bothered to play it.

Thanks for declaring my 200+ hours in the game non-existant...

 

[Edmon]

Wow, this thread. Seriously.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but apparently I do, because everyone seems to think this is about making achievements easier or that they used to be easier and now they are harder that is a problem. Now that is technically correct, but it's totally missing the point.

Listen, there are good players out there. One thing they aren't lazy, or stupid. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is bad btw.)

Why is automated exploration a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job manually and have the will and talent to see through their exploration in the most effective way. It levels the playing field unfairly for bad players.

Why is development a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job never ever spending a single point on it. They understand that if they are dropping points on development, they are not being effective with their resources. However, it does give bad players a place to dump their points, making the game more static and somewhat rewarding bad play, which keeps bad players bad.

If a bad palyer got a 6/6/6 god, he'd have to expand and work hard to invest all the points without waste, doing risking expanding. Now he can just development dump and never be overly punished for playing 100% safe.

Why are the new forts a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they will do a better job never spending a single penny on forts and plowing all their money into the army. This effectively removes forts from the game for good players. When two good players go ahead to head, things get cheesy fast. Unless one guy made forts, in which case he will lose comically. If they were free, it would be fine (say capped to 1 every 10 provinces or whatever) but they aren't.

Good players disable these expansions because they are frustrating. Thats why common sense in part has terrible reviews. Good players quickly realise (being good) that the best way to play is without these features or with them but to never invest or use them, thus shallowing the game.

These features take away freedoms and thus create frustration for good players who can and will micromanage like a boss.

TL;DR:
Expansion features are often best completely avoided for the highest possible skill ceiling game.

In simple terms:
Remember the diplomatic trick? Recalling and resending it for extra improved relations? A good player could micromanage that at high speed during a mulitplayer game to get ahead, while managing everything else at speed 3 and with no pauses. It added skill ceiling, agree with it or not, thats what it did. Things like it, that are actually key features, are leaving the game because there is either no room for mircomanagement, or because the optimal play is to sack a feature off entirely (like forts).

 

[Torugu]

I sort of agree, but this is a better sign these mechanics aren't working too well. If we're seeing reformed painting 2/3 of the HRE and 5 protestant minors, the current league war setup is nonsense. Under such a scenario we have no historical precedent but would anticipate the "reformed" religions carrying weight and posturing in the HRE more effectively. Creating nonsense outcomes like "Catholic league wins" but having 3 eligible Catholic nations left suggests that the mechanic needs work.

It's the same deal with Buddhism. The over-arching mechanics and incentives in the game make the karma slider as-implemented an active detriment to the faith. If something is going to see development time and marketing as a fun-to-use feature, strong disincentive to using it at all because it gets in the way of basic gameplay is questionable. Then again, pdox seems pretty hard-set in making the Abrahamic faiths far and away the best, so I doubt we'll see it turn good, maybe viable if we're lucky (Hindu is viable at least).

No offense (and sorry for the off topic), but have you ever considered that it might be more effective to present your (totally reasonable) arguments without slapping on baseless accusations at the end?

 

[Zelius]

Wow, this thread. Seriously.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but apparently I do, because everyone seems to think this is about making achievements easier or that they used to be easier and now they are harder that is a problem. Now that is technically correct, but it's totally missing the point.

Funny, I seem to always be missing your points. Or perhaps there is another common denominator? We can only speculate.

Listen, there are good players out there. One thing they aren't lazy, or stupid. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is bad btw.)

Why is automated exploration a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job manually and have the will and talent to see through their exploration in the most effective way. It levels the playing field unfairly for bad players.

Or maybe some just don't want to micro exploration for every single province and sea tile?

Why is development a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job never ever spending a single point on it. They understand that if they are dropping points on development, they are not being effective with their resources. However, it does give bad players a place to dump their points, making the game more static and somewhat rewarding bad play, which keeps bad players bad.

If a bad palyer got a 6/6/6 god, he'd have to expand and work hard to invest all the points without waste, doing risking expanding. Now he can just development dump and never be overly punished for playing 100% safe.

First tell me how getting a 6/6/6 god relies on skill as a non-republic. Or why having nothing to spend it as the alternative is better. This is not a Strategic Training Simulator for future military leadership roles. Who cares if 'bad play' (read: different play style) is not punished.

Why are the new forts a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they will do a better job never spending a single penny on forts and plowing all their money into the army. This effectively removes forts from the game for good players. When two good players go ahead to head, things get cheesy fast. Unless one guy made forts, in which case he will lose comically. If they were free, it would be fine (say capped to 1 every 10 provinces or whatever) but they aren't.

Forts are very, very useful in certain situations (read: not already best nation). Ever fought a multi-front war? Ever fought against a superior alliance? I like to provoke coalitions in the late-game for the fun and epic battles, and forts make them easy to mop up one at a time.

Good players disable these expansions because they are frustrating. Thats why common sense in part has terrible reviews. Good players quickly realise (being good) that the best way to play is without these features or with them but to never invest or use them, thus shallowing the game.

These features take away freedoms and thus create frustration for good players who can and will micromanage like a boss.

Good players can play without being significantly hindered by expansion mechanics. Again, please tell me how having the possibility to spend on development leads to 'bad play' in any way.

TL;DR:
Expansion features are often best completely avoided for the highest possible skill ceiling game.

In simple terms:
Remember the diplomatic trick? Recalling and resending it for extra improved relations? A good player could micromanage that at high speed during a mulitplayer game to get ahead, while managing everything else at speed 3 and with no pauses. It added skill ceiling, agree with it or not, thats what it did. Things like it, that are actually key features, are leaving the game because there is either no room for mircomanagement, or because the optimal play is to sack a feature off entirely (like forts).

No offence, but if you like to 'micro-manage' like this then play a triple-A RTS. You can train your super-clicking-speed there.

I like to think of skill as 'performing the correct actions' and not 'clicking all of the things'.

 

[Noel84]

Why is development a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job never ever spending a single point on it. They understand that if they are dropping points on development, they are not being effective with their resources. However, it does give bad players a place to dump their points, making the game more static and somewhat rewarding bad play, which keeps bad players bad.

If a bad palyer got a 6/6/6 god, he'd have to expand and work hard to invest all the points without waste, doing risking expanding. Now he can just development dump and never be overly punished for playing 100% safe.a

some people (myself definitely not included) enjoy this type of gameplay far more than rapid expansion. Not because they don't know it's not as effecient, but because they find it more fun.

Why are the new forts a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they will do a better job never spending a single penny on forts and plowing all their money into the army. This effectively removes forts from the game for good players. When two good players go ahead to head, thing get cheesy fast. Unless one guy made forts, in which case he will lose comically. If they were free, it would be fine (say capped to 1 every 10 provinces or whatever) but they aren't

Not even close to true. Many good players say that multiplier is the only times where forts are a good investment, in fact the a smart investment. It slows down the enemy, gives you time to prepare, a safe place to recover from a lost battle etc. They're useless against the rarely threatening AI.

 

[Chief of Staff]

You have a choice only on land, but not at sea.

Well, that's really weird. Did Paradox say why you don't have choice at sea?

 

[grommile]

Remember: "levels the playing field for bad players" means "lets the AI play better".

 

[YuriiH]

Listen, there are good players out there. One thing they aren't lazy, or stupid. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is bad btw.)

If 'good' could be changed to 'conquest-aimed', then you are generally right.
Fortunately, conquest is not one and the only side of a coin in a historical simulator.
Unfortunately, other sides of the game have (range from somewhat to extremely) clumzy implementation, and surely may be improved.

Still, the game develops, and probably at least conquest issues will be addressed.

 

[Thrake]

Good players disable these expansions because they are frustrating.

Did you know all good players and asked them personnaly if they felt it was frustrating to be able to make such a statement? If so, how do you determine who is a "good player"?

Why is development a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job never ever spending a single point on it. They understand that if they are dropping points on development, they are not being effective with their resources. However, it does give bad players a place to dump their points, making the game more static and somewhat rewarding bad play, which keeps bad players bad.

So, you say that developing is inefficient, but you also say that it is unfair to the good player because bad players can spend inefficiently their points?

Why is automated exploration a bad idea?
It frustrates good players, because they could do a better job manually and have the will and talent to see through their exploration in the most effective way. It levels the playing field unfairly for bad players.

Will... Ok, but talent? Only talent is to check out attrition or to rush for the carribeans because you know by heart where it is even in the middle of TI... As for will I personnaly call it useless micro (the worst part was when you had to make your ship go through the same province 10 times until you finaly uncover the coastal province you wanted to colonize...).

In simple terms:
Remember the diplomatic trick? Recalling and resending it for extra improved relations? A good player could micromanage that at high speed during a mulitplayer game to get ahead, while managing everything else at speed 3 and with no pauses. It added skill ceiling, agree with it or not, thats what it did. Things like it, that are actually key features, are leaving the game because there is either no room for mircomanagement, or because the optimal play is to sack a feature off entirely (like forts).

If you had to actually move each and every single stack, 1k men per 1k men, would you think it would add to gameplay as it would actually make players with high apm better? Do you think Starcraft is a casual game because you can select multiple units and move them in two clicks?

 

[HansBaer]

Good players also give themselves player bonuses and set the difficulty to easy in ironman through exploit because all good players want to conquer the world with as much ease as possible, right?

 

[happymix91]

The game isn't made for achievement achievement hunters, and that 'good players'. It is made for gameplay, vast majority of players, and developers' money. If developers pay attention to problems with turning on/off dlc, will gameplay experience be improved? Will vast majority of players be happy enough to keep buying further dlcs? Will sales of the game be improved?

Recommended gameplay with newest version is playing with every dlcs on. Someone play with some dlcs off for achievement? Who cares, let them do. They want to clear achievement that badly, and recommended gameplay isn't forced way, so no one cares. Should developers consider that gameplay and spend time for it? Why they should? If someone get merit for that way, it is just a exploit similar with getting player handicap at ironman or using guarantee to reduce treaty. But it isn't same with them, because it is an issue from not recommended game and they are issues from recommended game. If you think that they should fix it, why don't you tell them to block achievement earn from older versions?

Fixing this issue doesn't give much benefit for developers or vast majority of players. It makes the game looks more complete, but doesn't have much effect for sales and gameplay experience. If Paradox were Blizzard, it would fix this issue, but it is not. Because this issue doesn't have higher priority.

 

[YuriiH]

Good players also give themselves player bonuses and set the difficulty too easy in ironman

I wish I have seen someone's RuyKuy World Conquer in Very Hard conditions… I would never try it myself, because it is already extremely frustrating and long run although doable in normal.

If Paradox were Blizzard, it would fix this issue, but it is not. Because this issue doesn't have higher priority.

If Paradox were Blizzard they would say “soonTM” and only start issuing multiple fixes in three years, and finally fix the issue in 5-6 years after initial start of sales (say “Hi!” to competitive DPS of multiclasses in vanilla WoW, BC and partially LK, and especially to paladins).
Just because the issue doesn't have higher priority…

 

[happymix91]

Some people misunderstand the word 'good player'. Good players are players who play the game in intended way and achieve many things which seem impossible for newbies or mediocre players. Using exploits or playing the game in not intended way and achieve things? We call them 'cheater' or 'munchkin'.