The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions
- Thread starter Edmon
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So he was hired at QA team, so no longer a cheater. Instead, he becomes a good employee.Well sone people call him Jake
And he is a good player too. Many cheaters in EU4 are also a good player, if they don't use exploits.
- 2
- 1
I have 1184 hours logged on Europa Universalis IV.
I do not recall playing even 1 of those hours on iron man.
- 8
you think development is useless for a human player you're not as good as you think you are
many runs where you have gold or have limited room for expansion are made significantly easier with development
- 5
- 2
- 1
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).
You are confusing the term "good player" with "conquest orinted". A good player will find a way to spend their money and monarch points the most efficient way. If said player has a conquest oriented mindset then for him the most efficient way will be conquest. But there are players out there who prefer the safer approach and don't want to go to war every year (including myself). Why would it make us a bad player? We find that the most efficient way to spend our points is to dump them in development. So your arguments are pretty much invalid.
- 8
ITT: People who don't attempt a WC every game are bad and should be banned from playing.
- 8
- 2
- 1
Newbie here, 137 hours and bought the game last month. Ironman convinced me to buy the game with a friend. Finally a "failproof" method to have a honest competition with a friend and to protect yourself to screw up your own game.
Losing is an integral part of the game, you won't enjoy winning if you have never lost.
Last edited:
- 13
- 4
You have a choice on land because the automatic exploration applies only to the new world** as part of the "search for the 7 cities".
**on sea its the whole world.
Yep. Or you can block it from sending the data with your firewall.
(Which reminds me, since I have a new computer I need to do that again.)
It's okay, eventually one of you will realize you can savescum by ending the process through the task manager. Ironman accomplishes nothing except forcing an extra two hours worth of save times minimum on anything not a SSD.
- 10
- 2
- 2
What are you even talking about? I watch tons and tons of EU 4 Let's plays and i have never heard a single Let's Player utter those words.
Arumba, Shenryyr2, DDRJake, Marco Antonio. All Let's Players that are doing the toughest Achievements that are in the game and none of them did them by turning of certain Dlc to make the game easier. Maybe you should watch Let's players that are actually good at the game, instead of the ones turning of features to make it easier for them.
- 6
- 2
- 2
And the convenience of not having to click "save".
Which I actually rate pretty highly.
- 9
- 2
Any achievement in the game can be made trivial by exploits/turning dlc's on or off/using general scumbaggery.
So, really it's a question of how far do you want to go and how much challenge/epicness do you want in your playthrough.
Good players turn DLC off is the same as saying Good Fallout players play on easy difficulty. It's really weird.
You control how difficult any achievement/goal is going to be; provided you know the exploits/bugs.
Part of what keeps this game so ****ing awesome is that the developers fix the exploits, and put new ones in.
You gotta look for them and figure out a way to use them to the max.
After finding them you get a choice, to use or not use, in the same way as you having the choice between: Do I westernize as a horde or stay unreformed all game for an added challenge.
Or forming a Jewish Arabia; not because it's the best way to form Arabia, as in, will increase your chances of forming Arabia and getting that coffee achievement but as an added challenge or because it's funny or whatever.
Just make your playthroughs interesting and challenging FOR YOU, if that means turning off DLC then that's what that means.
So, really it's a question of how far do you want to go and how much challenge/epicness do you want in your playthrough.
Good players turn DLC off is the same as saying Good Fallout players play on easy difficulty. It's really weird.
You control how difficult any achievement/goal is going to be; provided you know the exploits/bugs.
Part of what keeps this game so ****ing awesome is that the developers fix the exploits, and put new ones in.
You gotta look for them and figure out a way to use them to the max.
After finding them you get a choice, to use or not use, in the same way as you having the choice between: Do I westernize as a horde or stay unreformed all game for an added challenge.
Or forming a Jewish Arabia; not because it's the best way to form Arabia, as in, will increase your chances of forming Arabia and getting that coffee achievement but as an added challenge or because it's funny or whatever.
Just make your playthroughs interesting and challenging FOR YOU, if that means turning off DLC then that's what that means.
- 3
Define "exploit" and "playing the game in not intended ways".
- 3
Because being able to go back to the previous save is exactly the same as full console access?
Anyway, the next patch is supposed to cut the frequency, so the save time should be less of a problem.
Yeah, I tend to forget about that since I'm a compulsive saver. I think we've talked about our saving habits in the past, though, so no sense in discussing it now.
On a side note, when did they get rid of the ability to see who agreed/disagreed/found your post helpful? I liked that function.
- 3
They didn't.
They got rid of the ability to see who rated other people's posts. You can still see the ratings of your own posts via the "Ratings Received" item in the little menu that drops down when you mouseover your forum username near the top of the page.
- 3
- 1
What I meant, which I shouldn't need to clarify but am going to, is that only 16.8% of people bothered to play the game the way it was intended to be played. You don't get achievements if you don't play Ironman, ergo, Ironman is the way the game is intended to be played. If it wasn't, then you'd get achievements without Ironman mode enabled, for example, StarCraft gives out achievements even if you save and reload in a mission many times.
This is always a choice developers make and the vast majority allow players to earn achievements as long as they play the game without mods, they intend saving and reloading to be allowed. But EUIV is not one of these games, you cannot earn achievements without ironman, so you can only presume that you are not playing the intended way if you are not using it.
Which makes sense. The developers do not want you to save and reload your way out of all the negative events that randomly occur to your nation. They want you to play a balanced game, where some good and some bad things happen to you and you have to manage both, not reload your way out of them.
You already knew this though. You've spent 3100 hours roleplaying and/or sandboxing and I have no particular problem with that. If you are enjoying that then more power to you. But you've not been playing the game. A game is defined by it's rules, and the game I've been playing has a rule that says that I can't save and reload my game as I please. You are not playing with that rule, so you are not playing the same game I am, but a different game.
If you don't get that, unfortunately, I have no better way to explain it. So we'll just have to disagree.
- 38
From game statistics 16.8% at one point touched ironman, around 13% stayed a bit longer and 4-5% actually played to any significant extent. Assuming info from other steam games holds true I would imagine the group of people who can be called players of EU4 is somewhere between 5% and 15%, closer to the former if I had to state.
Also it is worth keeping mind that from what I have seen the people who got the easier achievements then stopped playing ironman is bigger than those who never played with it at all so even the 5% there doesn't mean it is mainly made of ironman players.
EDIT: @Edmon ironman enforces absolutely nothing. A person can play within the supposed rules without it and a person can play outside them with it. Even without going into third party programs save&reload(possible in ironman), bugs, exploits, mistakes and unintended results pretty much guarantee that.
Also it is worth keeping mind that from what I have seen the people who got the easier achievements then stopped playing ironman is bigger than those who never played with it at all so even the 5% there doesn't mean it is mainly made of ironman players.
EDIT: @Edmon ironman enforces absolutely nothing. A person can play within the supposed rules without it and a person can play outside them with it. Even without going into third party programs save&reload(possible in ironman), bugs, exploits, mistakes and unintended results pretty much guarantee that.
Last edited:
- 6