The Great and Forever Disabled Expansions

[RobRoy3]

...only 16.8% of people bothered to play the game the way it was intended to be played.

Perhaps you really meant to say "only 16.8% of people bothered to play the game the way I think it should be played" Then all of your statements make sense.

What I meant, which I shouldn't need to clarify but am going to...

You often do need to clarify points that are... unusual.

Ironman is the way the game is intended to be played.

Nonsense. It is neither the default, nor the standard setting for any Paradox game. Ever.

...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.

Sounds like I should just use an achievements editor, then, and be done with it. That wouldn't be cheating, since that is clearly the intended use of such an editor.

I think the unfortunate link between ironman and achievements gives rise to many misunderstandings about how the game is intended to be played. Worse, it gives rise to an ugly elitism that is occasionally evidenced by players who think their play style is superior and who are quick to condemn the failings of alternative play styles.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Why are we insulting the different ways to play again?

The OP mentioned that every single lets play he has run across includes the hints to disable the DLCs El Dorado and Common Sense so they can, one, conquer the new world before the AI can reach, and, two, so world conquest costs less in Monarch points.

He also says only people who play one particularly challenging hard way are the only people actually playing the game. Everyone else is just dithering around for fun.

16.8% of EU4 owners have the royal marriage achievement. It's safe to say most people don't care about achievements and ironman.

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

I disagree.

Spoiler

My computer is so slow iron-man does nothing but slow down the game. I play iron-man only when I am trying for achievements. Plus, when Iron-man became a thing, I used it to cure myself of save scumming (saving often and reloading to change a result, more common in EU2, less common in EU3, no longer need to do it in EU4). Now any attempt at save scum means I have to go back to the autosave, rarely worth my time any more. It's actually more fun to live with the bad rolls and trying to overcome a blind turn of fortune, than to win every battle using boring old "better living through save/reload".

-It is so cheap to core overseas territories that even if the AI manages to create colonies, it won't cost you very much to add cores to them. Leave El Dorado on, save your hand from carpal tunnel by auto exploring. Same result in the end, less physical stress.

-If you are trying for some personal best/fastest world conquest record, go ahead and disable Common Sense. If you are just trying to conquer the world, I say there is no reason not to keep Common Sense on. The other standard tricks like forming vassal walls to keep down expansion costs makes it so you are coring overseas most of the time anyway, so the monarch point hit is pretty small... much, much smaller than the number of points the AI spent to raise the value of the province. With Common Sense on, the new fort system and other changes has actually sped conquest up for me. You might like it if you try it.

 

[eon47]

About once a week or so, the OP makes a topic written in an intentionally aggravating tone with many sweeping assumptions and opinions stated as facts about a point that may or may not have any validity. Many people object to this and disagree with the OP's comments. The OP then takes this as a sign that the other people are stupid and incapable of understanding his point rather than just irritated at the assumptions and rudeness and decides to be even more condescending and state even more personal opinions as facts. The cycle repeats itself for a while, and then the topic loses steam and fades into the abyss where it belongs.

There's precisely zero chance of convincing the OP of anything, and he's clearly just out for the attention. I should probably stop reading this myself, but these topics are like roadkill--too awful not to look at.

 

[Edmon]

About once a week or so.

So, is it once or week or not?

the OP makes a topic written in an intentionally aggravating tone

I'm glad you can read someone's intent over the internet, when this is known to be almost impossible due to there being... ironically and in contrast to your statement, a complete lack of tone on the internet in written medium.

Many people object to this and disagree with the OP's comments. The OP then takes this as a sign that the other people are stupid and incapable of understanding his point

Indeed, many people disagreeing with things that are demonstrably the case does make them look like they are incapable of understanding. Disagreement is not the same as refutation, of which there is precious little. Even those who disagreed eventually admitted on coring costs being an all consuming super idea, then said "well it's only best for World Conquest, not however how I play the game". Same with the defined victory condition. "The way I play the game" is set of nebious goalposts that are able to be moved to whatever one would like them to be, which is fine if you are a roleplayer.

It's very simple to understand.

1) This game has a lose condition, it's lose all your provinces.
2) Coring cost reductions help you get provinces, money, power and position faster than anything else possibly can. In this manner, this one single idea is extremely powered.
3) The game ends when you get to 1821, you get a victory screen and a score. The goal of this game, therefore, is to make it to 1821 with the highest possible score. A bit like an old arcade game really.
4) Your score is better (thus your performance is measured) typically, when you just kill everyone so you have no competitors. The faster you pull it off, the better. However, there are different nations to play, so there is depth in "Victory + Score as X nation".

These things are all facts, none of them have been refuted by anybody to any level of rigor or statisfaction. And no, saying that the game is a multiplayer game full of mystical super-players is not a reason to underrate coring cost reduction.

This topic was on game depth and skill ceiling, but once again is beyond all but what it seems like 3 people. It's not what I expected of this community considering the game tends to appeal to people with a really strong understanding of systems, opportunity cost, game theory and other high level strategic thought.

I am sorry if this strikes you as arrogant, but I've studied gaming my whole life, not diplomacy . I apologise in advance for that.

If you can't agree with someone because you see them as some sort of "bad guy" to fight against, you've missed the point of a debate and we really will go no-where.

Tip:
Point 2 could possibly be refuted, if you demonstrated a better idea that gave you more position, power, etc, faster than coring reduction using math.

Point 4 could be refuted, if there was a better way to avoid the loss condition and gain score than just "kill everyone asap".

Point 1 and 3 are basically impossible to refute and are facts. Disagreement with them shows me all the people who can't see that a spade is a spade and thus save myself the effort of reading their posts.

I wanted someone to refute my points, because that is interesting, but I was left disappointed.

 

[EU3NOOB]

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.

So, I choose to not use a system that I don't support and thus I don't "Play the Game as Intended*"?

That's quite arrogant of you, you know.

And it doesn't explain why PDS is so Mod friendly.

Indeed, the reason why I don't play with ironman is because I play with MEIOU and Taxes, which I feel is superior to vanilla, which I would be stuck with if I wanted to use Ironman.


*As defined by you.

 

[grommile]

I'm glad you can read someone's intent over the internet, when this is known to be almost impossible due to there being... ironically and in contrast to your statement, a complete lack of tone on the internet in written medium.

If you think choice of words in written text can't convey something sufficiently resembling tone, you should retake high school English.

 

[Atlantians]

If you think choice of words in written text can't convey something sufficiently resembling tone, you should retake high school English.

This is true.

 

[eon47]

So, is it once or week or not?

Not all rates are static. If it rains every 5-9 days, one could say that it rains every week or so. This shouldn't be an unfamiliar concept.

I'm glad you can read someone's intent over the internet, when this is known to be almost impossible due to there being... ironically and in contrast to your statement, a complete lack of tone on the internet in written medium.

Huckleberry Finn has a tone. The Prince has a tone. The note a mother leaves in her child's lunchbox has a tone. Bathroom graffiti has a tone. Tone is taught and studied in grade school and college composition. This also should not be an unfamiliar concept.

Indeed, many people disagreeing with things that are demonstrably the case does make them look like they are incapable of understanding.

Or it is not in fact demonstrably the case, or you have done a very bad job demonstrating it. Your premise is based on multiple assumptions.

Failure to communicate an idea is ultimately a lack of judgement on the part of the speaker to accurately assess the listener and select the best means of conveying a thought. Even if you're right--and sometimes I do agree with you--your arguments are consistently failures. You assume that this is because other people cannot comprehend ideas as advanced as you can, but that is highly unlikely; I remember reading a topic about the careers of people on this board, and there's quite an assortment of intellectuals on here.

If you're not a troll, it's entirely possible that the explanation for all this is that you have little self-awareness.

Snip

Not worth my time. And really, writing this isn't worth my time, and I should know better; I apologize to everyone here. I'll see myself out, thank you.

 

[sargeta]

So, is it once or week or not?




I'm glad you can read someone's intent over the internet, when this is known to be almost impossible due to there being... ironically and in contrast to your statement, a complete lack of tone on the internet in written medium.




Indeed, many people disagreeing with things that are demonstrably the case does make them look like they are incapable of understanding. Disagreement is not the same as refutation, of which there is precious little. Even those who disagreed eventually admitted on coring costs being an all consuming super idea, then said "well it's only best for World Conquest, not however how I play the game". Same with the defined victory condition. "The way I play the game" is set of nebious goalposts that are able to be moved to whatever one would like them to be, which is fine if you are a roleplayer.

It's very simple to understand.

1) This game has a lose condition, it's lose all your provinces.
2) Coring cost reductions help you get provinces, money, power and position faster than anything else possibly can. In this manner, this one single idea is extremely powered.
3) The game ends when you get to 1821, you get a victory screen and a score. The goal of this game, therefore, is to make it to 1821 with the highest possible score. A bit like an old arcade game really.
4) Your score is better (thus your performance is measured) typically, when you just kill everyone so you have no competitors. The faster you pull it off, the better. However, there are different nations to play, so there is depth in "Victory + Score as X nation".

These things are all facts, none of them have been refuted by anybody to any level of rigor or statisfaction. And no, saying that the game is a multiplayer game full of mystical super-players is not a reason to underrate coring cost reduction.

This topic was on game depth and skill ceiling, but once again is beyond all but what it seems like 3 people. It's not what I expected of this community considering the game tends to appeal to people with a really strong understanding of systems, opportunity cost, game theory and other high level strategic thought.

I am sorry if this strikes you as arrogant, but I've studied gaming my whole life, not diplomacy . I apologise in advance for that.

If you can't agree with someone because you see them as some sort of "bad guy" to fight against, you've missed the point of a debate and we really will go no-where.

Tip:
Point 2 could possibly be refuted, if you demonstrated a better idea that gave you more position, power, etc, faster than coring reduction using math.

Point 4 could be refuted, if there was a better way to avoid the loss condition and gain score than just "kill everyone asap".

Point 1 and 3 are basically impossible to refute and are facts. Disagreement with them shows me all the people who can't see that a spade is a spade and thus save myself the effort of reading their posts.

I wanted someone to refute my points, because that is interesting, but I was left disappointed.

Get help, son.

 

[Fundai]

That's all very well and good for those players, but I personally, and as others have probably said above, enjoy new features to create an interesting challenge.

For example, increased coring cost from CS, because anything to make blobbing difficult is good in my books; I've been enjoying plotting out ways to get the -50% from colony, even coring mainland Europe and Asia, and then connecting them 5 years later. (Less than 40 Admin to core Constantinople, if you get it right.)

I feel like a lot of the people you're describing aren't going to like 'The Cossacks' either. They can't play nations like Theodoro, and let Muscovy carry them for 100 years, taking all the land and rewards besides some token province but doing 5% of the work. So while they're not incorrect turning off those features in order to min/max some nice looking WC or whatever, players that have grown past sheer blobbing really do enjoy having more complex systems to work with.

I guess TLDR, the point of Grand Strategy was never to be easy. I'm looking forward to having to make the choice between taking on the Ottomans alone, getting all the glory, or taking them on with the PLC and having to split the rewards, just as I was looking forward to having to deal with the increased development of CS.

 

[Edmon]

Get help, son.

Why would I need help for your groupthink?

I actually joined this forum eons ago but lurked for a long time, hence the 2014 join date. I've watched this community ruthlessly beat down new posters who have genuine concerns about the actual "gameplay" and not the roleplay. Especially during the Common Sense release "era" (I.E. the 2 weeks after).

It's amusing really, you all support each other and thats great. But I still see no refutation of my points and the reason why is because you can't. But you so very desperately want to, because you are all in it together.

No worries though, you can feel like you've won and I can be silenced like the many before me, so you can roleplay all you want without anyone questioning the gameplay or your skill level.

This game's decision making is getting shallower and the optimal paths easier to see and understand. All while the game gets more complex overhead and systems. It is a shame, but it is what it is.

Edit: I quite agree with the person who said the diplomat trick was pointless busywork. It was busywork that you had to do to be optimal, but it was something to actually do that actually mattered. Something which this game is losing at a rapid pace.

Here is a simple example, the old missions system was deeply flawed, but the rewards were often things like military points, administration points, etc. It was worth messing around with it to try and extract these rewards and/or cycle the missions quickly. There is a great element of skill into getting the most out of them.

Now the mission rewards are basically worthless (for the generic ones), so the system gets "more complex" and "more interesting", until you realise that the optimal strategy is to just completely ignore it because it's not worth your time or investiment.

 

[sargeta]

Why would I need help for your groupthink?

I actually joined this forum eons ago but lurked for a long time, hence the 2014 join date. I've watched this community ruthlessly beat down new posters who have genuine concerns about the actual "gameplay" and not the roleplay. Especially during the Common Sense release "era" (I.E. the 2 weeks after).

It's amusing really, you all support each other and thats great. But I still see no refutation of my points and the reason why is because you can't. But you so very desperately want to, because you are all in it together.

No worries though, you can feel like you've won and I can be silenced like the many before me, so you can roleplay all you want without anyone questioning the gameplay or your skill level.

No, seriously. Get help. I'm all for criticism, but you're grasping at straws. There are still many flawed things with EU4 and other games, and you decide to bash on a setting (ironman) and the way people play their games? Seriously? You care so much about what other people are doing with their games that you go about ranting endlessly trying to sound cool and smart, but it's all for naught. You go on and on and all I can hear is "stop doing that and do it the way I want."

 

[Edmon]

I'm sorry, but I'm not bashing the way people play their game, if they want to roleplay then they can do that all they want. Roleplay can be lots of fun. The "game" however, is either Ironman or Multiplayer (which effectively is Ironman) with no mods.

You can play it your own way all you want, that's fine. I know you feel the need to defend yourself because you feel looked down on, but that's on you not me.

I've reached the point where I feel I know what is optimal, and if anything, that process is getting simpler to execute over time, not more difficult. Expansions should add depth, not remove it.

 

[gdj]

It's amusing really, you all support each other and thats great. But I still see no refutation of my points and the reason why is because you can't. But you so very desperately want to, because you are all in it together.

No worries though, you can feel like you've won and I can be silenced like the many before me, so you can roleplay all you want without anyone questioning the gameplay or your skill level.

Wow. Another hero against the evil community/corporation/world. Very reminiscent of the "Boycott Paradox"-thread a few weeks ago. I agree though that its amusing.

 

[Edmon]

Anytime you want to try and actually refute a point, do let me know.

I am not alone either, though I'm sure writing me off as some sort of outlier would grant you comfort. However, places like the Steam Reviews, where you have no ability to bully people off the medium, very closly reflect my opinion. Which is pretty telling.

Edit: There are people on here as well who absolutely get it, they just aren't so direct about it as I am. Especially in the "winning" and "core cost" threads.

 

[gdj]

Yes, yes, the silent majority will rise up one day and all that jazz.

But seriously, if this is just an old school arcade game to gain max high score why do you hunt achievements at all? Actually, why do we have achievements instead of a simple "Hi-Score List" or "Hall of Fame" like in said old school arcade games?

You know, its hard to argue with someone who insists that a spade is a spade when he is pointing at a rake.

 

[EU3NOOB]

And it doesn't explain why PDS is so Mod friendly.

Edmon, here's some refutation.

 

[Edmon]

Edmon, here's some refutation.

There is no harm in making the game mod friendly, and adding that appeal for that subsection of the community. It is unrelated to the balance of the actual game, and thus is a seperate and totally unrelated bonus feature. Starcraft II is incredibly mod friendly and has a whole arcade full of mods, many of which are extreme fun. But it is also one of the most well balanced and competitive games on earth. These two things can exist together without issue. It's when modders and roleplayers feel they should have a say on the actual game proper, that there is an issue.

Remember, actual gamers, the competitive winner type can only play the actual game proper. You can mod and roleplay all you want, so why do you care so much about the games balance when it really is of no concern to you? There is only one multiplayer game, it's based on single player Ironman. This is "the game proper".

It's like, I know the optimal first pick for ideas is Admin, Religious or Exploration, based on the situation. However, I also know that Admin basically needs to feature in my first 3 (or ideally as my second pick) if I am to grow in power optimally. This is because the game lacks balance and a game that lacks balance is boring for competitive gamers.

 

[Noel84]

ne single idea is extremely powered.
3) The game ends when you get to 1821, you get a victory screen and a score. The goal of this game, therefore, is to make it to 1821 with the highest possible score. A bit like an old arcade game really.

No, paradox has never stated the goal of the game is to get more score, and many have other goals. The most optimal end of a game =/= "winning".
Also many "myself included) have refuted your points from earlier in the thread. You just chose to completely ignore the posts.
EDIT: Also, if ironman is the intended way to play, then way isn't it the default setting? Achievements can't be true because paradox has clearly said they couldn't care less if a patch makes certain achievements impossible.

 

[Edmon]

How do you refute the fact that there is a victory screen at 1821 that shows you your score and your placement? It even has 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc listed there to make it easy for you to understand. I ignore your so called refutation because it is nonsense.

Many have other goals that they made up out of the ether, that is called roleplay.