The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions

[Edmon]

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%, 10% if I had to give a number.

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 bugs, exploits, mistakes and unintended results pretty much guarantee that.

Circumventing the strict rules is called "Cheating". Ironman specifically states, in plain English, that it disables saving "So you can't reload when something goes wrong for your nation". If you then find a method to specifically do exactly that, you are a cheater. You've been told in English, which I'm sure you understand, to not save and reload when something goes wrong. The game should not have to (but does attempt to) enforce that rule, but you should have the morale fibre to follow the ruling without enforcement.

Exploits are different, because there is no statement somewhere at the start of the game that specifically and explicitly says "Thou shall not use the guarantee trick" for example.

 

[chrnno]

Circumventing the strict rules is called "Cheating". Ironman specifically states, in plain English, that it disables saving "So you can't reload when something goes wrong for your nation". If you then find a method to specifically do exactly that, you are a cheater. You've been told, in English, which I'm sure you understand to not save and reload when something goes wrong. The game should not have to (but does attempt to) enforce that rule, but you should have the morale fibre to follow the ruling without enforcement.

Exploits are different, because there is no statement somewhere at the start of the game that specifically and explicitly says "Thou shall not use the guarantee trick" for example.

As I said you can play with ironman and not follow any of it's intended rules and you can play without and follow the intended rules. Ironman and getting achievements(which I do for the record) or not means utterly nothing in whether you are playing the way devs intended. From here I have no way of telling whether it is say you or EU3NOOB playing the game 'correctly'.

And no the way devs means the game to be played is obviously without bugs, exploits or taking advantage of any mistakes they made(such as putting AE too low for example) I really don't see how you can possibly disagree with that. The fact you might not have known it was unintended doesn't change that it was so.

Also intention of developers is a pretty funny statement considering how much effort devs put into making modding easy, to the point one might say not modding the game or at least making use of mods goes against it.

 

[Edmon]

Yes, you can be a cheater if you want to be. What is your point?

Bugs, exploits, etc, are all cases where you cannot know the intent of the developer, so you just have to play the game using whatever explicit actions are available. I am not the developer of this game, I cannot know their intent unless it is clearly stated in English or the game itself disallows me from doing something.

Ironman is a very specific case where a rule has been given to you, in written English which you can comprehend and agree to. Much like a game of football where at the start one of the stated rules is that you don't pick up the ball with your hands and run down the field with it.

You can ignore it if you wish, but that makes you a cheater, or a rugby player. What you are not doing, is playing football.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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'.

Ad hominems have no credibility. You're not building an argument against these tactics because you don't have one. If one points the finger at an action within the game rules and cries "exploit" or "cheater", that person has instantly undermined their own credibility and capabilities within the context of that game. Sure, if someone is bypassing the game rules that is cheating by definition, and stuff like save edits, SAM, or breaking ironman restrictions fall into that category.

Munchkin and cheater isn't the same thing though, and extrapolating "intent" is a fool's errand. Allying France, HRE revoke, disabling DLC, coalitions, and overseas coring are all in-game options per the rules. If you attempt to differentiate between these choices on the basis of "cheating", you are necessarily wrong/self-inconsistent. If you want to separate them on relative utility, you can get a more interesting discussion, but it will also make the assertion of "exploit" look silly.

Anyway, the idea that some of the DLC makes the game harder or easier isn't a big deal. It would be virtually impossible to add meaningful DLC without impacting the situational difficulty. It's when the new stuff conflicts with core gameplay or makes choices more shallow that it starts becoming problematic.

 

[Edmon]

You wouldn't happen to be a game designer like myself TheMeInTeam? Once again, you are bang on the money .

 

[gdj]

I am not the developer of this game, I cannot know their intent unless it is clearly stated in English or the game itself disallows me from doing something.

I think one of the devs made his intent very clear on page 1 of this discussion, by stating that he does not support the disabling of DLCs in single savegames, yes?

 

[Edmon]

I think one of the devs made his intent very clear on page 1 of this discussion, by stating that he does not support the disabling of DLCs in single savegames, yes?

Not what he said, go back and read it again. He said about fixing it so you can't toggle them on and off "in the same game". Not something I do nor something I spoke about. I said the great "AND FOREVER DISABLED" expansions. I am not toggling them back on again after the game has started...

 

[chrnno]

Yes, you can be a cheater if you want to be. What is your point?

Bugs, exploits, etc, are all cases where you cannot know the intent of the developer, so you just have to play the game using whatever explicit actions are available. I am not the developer of this game, I cannot know their intent unless it is clearly stated in English or the game itself disallows me from doing something.

Ironman is a very specific case where a rule has been given to you, in written English which you can comprehend and agree to. Much like a game of football where at the start one of the stated rules is that you don't pick up the ball with your hands and run down the field with it.

You can ignore it if you wish, but that makes you a cheater, or a rugby player. What you are not doing, is playing football.

Just because someone didn't tick ironman doesn't mean they aren't playing within those rules and simply would rather not waste time in save, lose a game because of a bug or something else. Using the achievement numbers to state how many are within is pointless because it doesn't include people like that. Personally only reason I started playing with ironman is because it allowed for internet to stop working after I loaded game otherwise I would have dropped it so I could play the game.

That's all I initially said to you. Later I added that simply because you don't know better doesn't mean you followed it, yes you have absolutely no fault nor you should be expected to be capable of doing so(indeed it is rather stupid) but if it was outside developers intent(which again include modding as a major aspect) for that patch then it was regardless of anything else.

 

[Edmon]

Just because someone didn't tick ironman doesn't mean they aren't playing within those rules and simply would rather not waste time in save, lose a game because of a bug or something else. Using the achievement numbers to state how many are within is pointless because it doesn't include people like that.

There is a nickname for this kind of player in game design. It's called a Unicorn. Though I will agree that maybe they did exist in the time when only Ironman cloud was available, because of the technical problems of cloud ironman for some people.

 

[YuriiH]

the game the way it was intended to be played.

This time you are wrong. I think you're just confusing what YOU want from a game, and what DEVELOPERS want from a game.
If a developer makes ironman as on/off option, than the developer (not just a gamer) decides that it is only ONE OF MANY ways the game is intended to be played.
If a developer makes on/off DLCs than the developer (again, not just a gamer) decides that DLC is only ONE OF MANY ways the game is intended to be played.
If it's me who is wrong, then WHY THE HELL WOULD DEVELOPERS INTRODUCE ANY OPTION EXCEPT IRONMAN MODE AND VANILLA FORT SYSTEM / EXPLORATION / COLONIAL NATIONS?
The answer is simple, the developers intend to play the game in different ways.

Again,

you've not been playing the game.

you've not been playing the game in non-ironman mode
Elitism is good, but only when you judge (compare with good/bad criterion) everyone who shares your elite group.
Otherwise, you cannot compare with good/bad anyone who is outside your group, the same way as you cannot compare how better Muslims are vs. Christians, or Protestants vs. Catholics.

And yeah! You're using double standards that are common for Elitism, actually
THE GAME IS INTENDED TO BE PLAYED AS RYUKYU IN IRONMAN MODE ON A VERY HARD DIFFICULTY.
GOOD (GOD) PLAYERS AIM FOR WORLD CONQUEST ONLY BECAUSE OF 'THREE MOUNTAINS' ACHIEVEMENT.
(everyone who plays otherwise is either lazy, or a bad player)
BTW, have you earnt TM in very hard with a video prove—as it is intended to play. No? See above.

 

[chrnno]

There is a nickname for this kind of player in game design. It's called a Unicorn. Though I will agree that maybe they did exist in the time when only Ironman cloud was available, because of the technical problems of cloud ironman for some people.

Well considering even now I see or even am the one to tell someone that you can save ironman locally...

 

[Torugu]

There is a nickname for this kind of player in game design. It's called a Unicorn. Though I will agree that maybe they did exist in the time when only Ironman cloud was available, because of the technical problems of cloud ironman for some people.

In that case I know at least three unicorns. And I don't even know that many people/fantastic equines.

Better make sure they don't find out I'm not a virgin. >.<

 

[viale]

Achievements have absolutely nothing to do with what the correct way of playing a game is. They are there because a certain rapid demographic of players demand it in all their toys nowadays, it is fairly easy to implement and it helps with replay value which translates into sales through new expansions. Some games only have them because publishers demand it: The Stanley Parable comes to mind, Spec Ops: The Line I believe is another one.

Then you have achievements that unlock as you progress through a singleplayer campaign, just for getting through the level(those are completely meaningless in every way and can even be detrimental to the game experience when they spoil the storyline in their names). Others simply unlock when you do the most basic task. I remember getting a bunch of achievements the first time I started a game in Civilization 5 for doing something as simple as settling a new city or meeting a City State. Those are ridiculous and a complete waste of everyone's time(including the 10 minutes it probably took the programmer to create it).

The achievements in EU 4 generally only exist because we players are gonna try weird things anyway and granting us a little digital medal for something we are gonna do anyway is a very easy way of keeping us coming back. And it lures us into trying other strange stuff. Tying achievements with Iron man mode is by far the easiest way of keeping any resemblance of achievement into the, ahem, achievement system.

I like the achievements, I use them for finding new things to do in the game but I don't see that as the "correct" way of playing it. I prefer playing in Ironman mode, but that has more to do with the heightened tension and consequences of my actions in the game than playing it "right". To me that is the most enjoyable way of playing the game. But if someone has a better experience when they are able to save/reload then that is their correct way of playing it.

Edmon

The developers do not want you to save and reload your way out of all the negative events that randomly occur to your nation.

This is blatantly false. The developers want you to enjoy the game first and foremost. How you enjoy it is up to you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is a nickname for this kind of player in game design. It's called a Unicorn. Though I will agree that maybe they did exist in the time when only Ironman cloud was available, because of the technical problems of cloud ironman for some people.

If I'm not achievement hunting I don't play ironman tbh. Even if you're on SSD and are averaging 1 second saves, we're talking thousands of saves. If you're not on SSD the amount of time spent 1444-1821 on saving alone can be burdensome, a healthy % of the entire time spent playing that game unless you really like the micro/slow play.

I've also never been a fan of its 1-way covenant. There is no recourse in ironman if you get screwed over by bugs. Unwinnable bugs are rare compared to before, but AFAIK there is still the occasional really rare edge case of impossible-to-end wars due to "former subject of defender". Between that, retreat-to-same-province, AIs freezing and refusing to move even after reload (kind of hurts the legitimacy of losses and wins alike when your opponents and allies decide not to move for a long time), new pop-ups taking precedent and causing you to accept things you never saw, and UI issues, it's hard to justify ironman as legit to its own premise.

I'm no unicorn. I'll cheat to avoid regency councils, will continue to do so until we're given some viable amount of agency there, and I thumb my nose at that trash design and those having a problem with me doing so. But most of the time, if I'm reloading I'm trying to either undo a bug, or most typically reloading the exact moment I've paused the game. I'm not some moral high-road player, but reloading for stuff tries my patience. I still do it more often than I'd like though because even now, the game will bug out and do crap like (this is from ironman):





But when you close the game (reloading isn't an option in ironman anyway, but exit to menu or load save will crash it if you've played a while) and reload in this situation you can core the province. I had to quit the game and load this ironman save to be able to core provinces 5 times towards the end of the run. No cheating, no tricks...I just wanted to be able to do something the game rules allow, but the game doesn't work unless you reload it sometimes.

Under this kind of environment, even the theoretical unicorns are going to spam reloads, because the game doesn't work, and this kind of crap makes the already-abrasive time lost to save spam all the more abrasive.

 

[gianlucad]

If you're a power game you really should just go play Total War... I'm tired of these people bragging about how they exploited a game's mechanics to conquer the world with a OPM just to get an achievement.

 

[Atlantians]

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.

Eh, I lose plenty.

That is why I don't play iron-man.

I can't replay critical parts of my nations demise to try and avert disaster if I can't reload previous saves.

Once, I had to replay a massive coalition war 10 times over in order to barely scrape by a white-peace without being thoroughly dismantled.

Also, iron-man doesn't allow you to fix AI errors.

 

[PhroX]

If you're a power game you really should just go play Total War... I'm tired of these people bragging about how they exploited a game's mechanics to conquer the world with a OPM just to get an achievement.

Define "exploited a game's mechanics"

 

[yerm]

This thread gave me cancer.

 

[doktorstick]

But when you close the game (reloading isn't an option in ironman anyway, but exit to menu or load save will crash it if you've played a while) and reload in this situation you can core the province. I had to quit the game and load this ironman save to be able to core provinces 5 times towards the end of the run. No cheating, no tricks...I just wanted to be able to do something the game rules allow, but the game doesn't work unless you reload it sometimes.

Heck, I'm not near as fluent with the game mechanics as some and if something isn't behaving as I expect it to, I quit the game and reload the save "just in case" it is the type of bug you point out. Sometimes it still doesn't work (because my expectation was wrong); sometimes it fixes it (because I was right).

The point is, the game has trained me to do this because of its bugs and opaque/dishonest UI.

 

[gianlucad]

Define "exploited a game's mechanics"

Exploiting alliances as a smaller nation (suuuuure, Poland IRL would totally send their entire army to conquer the Balkans for Byzantium after getting their asses wooped by the Ottomans in the previous crusade), blockading straights with navies because the AI is stupid, closing the game process through the task manager when you fuck up in ironman mode, using larger nations to fight wars for you when they have nothing to gain from it, using rebellions targeted against your state to your favor, vassal feeding, migrating to other continents when you barely have a hold over your colony (yes I know portugal did it during the napoleonic wars, but that was different), etc.

I know most people do these things in non-ironman games and I usually have no problem with it as I also do them myself, but when you do it and then brag to your friends/forum members about how great you are because you exploited the mechanics of a imperfect game then I just feel sad for you...