Unpopular Recent Changes

[deckhand]

..., I think I am going to stay in 13.2 because I do not like micromanaging estates.

If you don't buy or enable Cossacks, then you won't need to deal with estates.
I wait for sales to get the DLCs. Did Ottoman WC with 1.12/1.13 without Common Sense so no AI development increases. Now playing 1.15 with all DLCs except Cossacks and no annoying estate mechanics.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Devs make the game with a specific vision of what they have in mind for the game, so, yeah, they do get to define exploits. If they think a certain feature violates what they had in mind for the game, then they have every right to call it an exploit and remove it, as it is not part of the envisioned rule set they had in mind.

Nope. "Word of God" does not work when it self-contradicts. No matter what your design vision is, stating it is one thing and implementing something that conflicts with that statement necessarily means at least one of those things is wrong.

The problem here isn't that they "get to define" exploits, it's that their definition changes whimsically, rendering the term meaningless and discussion surrounding it smoke and mirrors.

The developers have to define exploit consistently for the term to carry any meaning whatsoever. The have (very obviously) neglected to do so. Wiz straight up said he defined exploit based on whim. But that means it has no meaning beyond whim...a terrible way to discuss the relative valuation of tactics between end-users.

It's almost as if the world isn't black-and-white, but dynamic and based on a multitude of ever-changing factors that can make one arrive at different opinions at different times over similar or different issues...

It's almost as if there is a language, and words have meaning within that language. If I defined black, white, multitude, factors, different, and issues differently than you did in that sentence, the meaning would be garbled beyond recognition. If you want to use what I just quoted, you must necessarily accept this statement:

"It's almost as if the world isn't blasphemy, but cereal and based on a cabbage of ever-changing spleens that can make one arrive at different shotputs at different times over plethora or different issues..."

As equally valuable. There is proper terminology for "I make changes based on whatever the heck I feel makes the game play better, and the only criteria I consistently rely on is that feeling". The word for that is not "exploit", any more than the word for "black-and-white" is "cabbage". If I say cabbage, you shouldn't be thinking about colors, you should probably be thinking about the actual thing that grows in the ground.

Yes, it was exploity as all Kanye to allow you to beat the Ottomans by building tons of ships as Byz.

Now we get to the fun part. On what grounds? What makes this an exploit, but not things that remain in the game "as intended" and "as designed"? What criteria merits nerfing this action over other actions? Can you come with *anything* that singles out this tactic?

That is the standard you need to meet, to avoid concluding the change is biased/junk. For things like infinite money, infinite points, or "causes game crash" the standard is obvious. Go ahead, let's see what criteria you come up with.

So far, the only thing you have is that it's an exploit because you think it's an exploit. I will now claim that forming a coalition against a nation with <100 development is an exploit. Tell me why your action is an exploit and my action is not an exploit. What baseline criteria singles one out from the other?

Make sure you don't inadvertently ban accepted tactics in the game. Good luck.

On the grounds that the developers think it's an exploit because they think it does not fit in line with what should be the rule set for the game.

What shapes their belief for what should be in the rule set for the game?

Whim. That's what statements and evidence show us. But whim =/= exploit. Not all added or removed features are "exploits".

It was always an exploit. If the Ottomans had to pick an idea group to beat a small nation then there's something wrong there.

I'm not interested in straw, they obviously didn't take it for BYZ, which won or died before idea groups. Quoted statement is nonsense. Next.

Except in many cases those "weaker" options gave you far more power in the long run.

Derp. If I said weaker, I meant weaker, not "weaker except when used a certain way where it's a top 1-tag tactic". If I meant "actually a top 1 tag tactic", I'd have said so.

I'm referring to pre-Cossacks hordes building non-horde units in foreign cores (but still pathetically behind on tech, ideas, etc). I'm referring to nerfs to primitives that were already 100% non-viable in a competitive scenario, regardless of them building ships. I'm referring to breaking large countries with nationalist rebels in accepted culture, or burning the AI to death in scorched earth.

These were not actions that typified players competing for fastest WC or leading in MP. Put the straw away and argue my actual points .

 

[Quaade]

The problem here isn't that they "get to define" exploits, it's that their definition changes whimsically, rendering the term meaningless and discussion surrounding it smoke and mirrors.

They can make changes to "exploits" and then change them again later... It´s called learning by doing ;-) by the number of DLC and features with changes to the system, it´s only logical that some changes that worked well before, didn´t do so any more... As such they should go... I have many times argued that they could do this another way, instead of only limiting players, they should also give him more to do with it... One of the reasons we conquer (I at least), it´s the simple most joyful part of the game, where you strategize on when to land your blow, gather allies and carefully try to manuever your troops into a favourable positions... It´s the wars I get most out of, could really use something like that internally, but not as genereric as rebels... Factions that you can side with perhaps, granting bonus and penalties and risk a civil war in the progress where you must choose to keep going that way and end up with having split your former empire due to your faction having had more to offer for you. You did´nt lose half an empire, you just won half an empire from former you, now with new bonuses to play with

The developers have to define exploit consistently for the term to carry any meaning whatsoever. The have (very obviously) neglected to do so. Wiz straight up said he defined exploit based on whim. But that means it has no meaning beyond whim...a terrible way to discuss the relative valuation of tactics between end-users.

I get it can be hard... Ususally I go with, an unintended consequence of actions that led to a disbalanced playstyle... Basically, you either win only by using this or you are at the receiving end of it...

Now we get to the fun part. On what grounds? What makes this an exploit, but not things that remain in the game "as intended" and "as designed"? What criteria merits nerfing this action over other actions? Can you come with *anything* that singles out this tactic?

One thing I sorely hate and dislike and see as semi-exploit, but that´s more for realism point of view... You can buy up you whole army of manpower, have it standing and wait a little, then my good, you can do it again... Having a quite large and quite cheap army like that... Lowering maintenance and making sure to have a lot of cash... Figthing a superior foe it´s a good thing to have stacks of these to throw at him, since numbers also do damage. When fight is over, you just consolidate your infantry and start filling in with mercs when the manpower gets low enough...

Would rather manpower was a base number... like 16k, buying 1 infantry would bring it down to 15k, if he´s dismissed it goes back up and perhaps only half up if not in own province. When the soldier dies he would then be reinforced, and then it will start reinforce... I always saw manpower as the able bodies that could fight, but really hard time to have that illussion when I already bought the pool twice, and it still keeps ticking up since more want to join...

 

[Viperswhip]

If you don't buy or enable Cossacks, then you won't need to deal with estates.
I wait for sales to get the DLCs. Did Ottoman WC with 1.12/1.13 without Common Sense so no AI development increases. Now playing 1.15 with all DLCs except Cossacks and no annoying estate mechanics.

I did disable it, I own it, that's how I came to the decision to disable it because I really didn't like the estate system.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They can make changes to "exploits" and then change them again later... It´s called learning by doing

You're dodging the crucial factor of the discussion, which is consistent criteria that differentiates exploits from standard gameplay. If you accept that anything is potentially an exploit, it loses meaning as a term. If you're trying to argue that playing the game is exploitative, then fine, but if not you're dodging the question .

I get it can be hard... Ususally I go with, an unintended consequence of actions that led to a disbalanced playstyle... Basically, you either win only by using this or you are at the receiving end of it...

Based on your "basically": Making alliances is an exploit. Building armies is an exploit. Researching technologies is an exploit.

The only differentiating factor between the above and say, using military access to base troops in advance is "intention". Defending in mountains is considered an extremely advantageous tactic, more consistently applicable across games than strait blocking. But defending in mountains wasn't defined as an exploit...and neither is a "you can only win by doing this" tactic!

The reason infinite money for example is obvious is because it trivializes decision-making in the game. When you have infinite money and your opponents do not, neither side's choices matter very much, same with infinite points.

As for balance, it's a tricky topic with a game that's unbalanced on purpose and should be unbalanced.

I don't know what's up with the non-sequitur answer to my as to why some things and not other things are singled out as exploitative. That wasn't a question about a mechanic you don't like, it was a question as to "under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

Let me put that again, just to be clear:

Under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

If one is to be honest with oneself, the answer to this question should not change between mechanics. But for several people in this thread and for at least some of the developers, somehow it does. It's a clear indicator of bias if you change the answer to that question depending on what you're talking about.

 

[WWIIFanatic1941]

I dislike the truce after breaking an alliance. It makes multiplayer less fluid by encouraging long term blocs that have 5 years to prepare for betrayal where it to occur. This removes opportunistic incentives that are otherwise able to be acted on. I would like to betray my ally in an ongoing game, but I can't wait 5 years to declare war or accept the costs of breaking a truce. For the AI it can make sense that the AI needs time to adapt to the player unallying, but that timer should be a month or so rather than the 5 years it is.

 

[deckhand]

... One of the reasons we conquer (I at least), it´s the simple most joyful part of the game, where you strategize on when to land your blow, gather allies and carefully try to manuever your troops into a favourable positions... It´s the wars I get most out of,

could really use something like that internally, but not as genereric as rebels... Factions that you can side with perhaps, granting bonus and penalties and risk a civil war in the progress where you must choose to keep going that way and end up with having split your former empire due to your faction having had more to offer for you. You did´nt lose half an empire, you just won half an empire from former you, now with new bonuses to play with

Agree with first quoted paragraph.

But Paradox, Please don't implement something like second paragraph. I cringe at attempts to make peace periods more engaging. Mostly it's just clutter and tedium.
Estates and Development are both attempts to make game more engaging during peace. But they are just unfun hoops player has to jump thru. Distractions from planning our next conquests.

I get it can be hard... Ususally I go with, an unintended consequence of actions that led to a disbalanced playstyle... Basically, you either win only by using this or you are at the receiving end of it... ..

Under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

When used in way unintended by the developer. Yes, developer gets to define it.

An example of exploit is exiled armies used as spies. Developer decided to code that feature away.
Strait blocking was not an exploit. Developer decided they wanted to change how it functioned. That's just evolving the game.
Wiz stated hordes building other units nations was removed because AI never did it. I think that one would go under game evolution and not exploit removal. But this one is a close call.

edit, another exploit would be the Guarantee /Cancel Guarantee to reset Truce Timer to five years, clearly not working as intended; could be considered a bug and using it was an exploit (but fun and not needed if they hadn't extended the truce period)

 

[Freudia]

Wiz stated hordes building other units nations was removed because AI never did it. I think that one would go under game evolution and not exploit removal.

The issue with that line of reasoning though is that it got changed in a negative way that didn't get addressed until seven patches later. I don't like the idea that the developers can just adversely impact their own game at the drop of a hat, nor do I understand the appeal of doing such a thing and take so long to implement something that should have gone hand-in-hand with the change to the mechanic.

This ties in with things like Native ship removal. You can argue that's game evolution, but how does that make the game better when it dumbed down the game for a subset of nations on the board and introduced significantly more waiting for them? That's not game evolution, that's literal downgrading.

Paradox likes hitting something and making sure they're dead before implementing the changes that should have accompanied the initial nerf, though, which doesn't really make much sense to me but that's Paradox for you.

 

[RobRoy3]

An example of exploit is exiled armies used as spies. Developer decided to code that feature away.

Bad example. That one hung around for ages, is still partially available, and is entirely a function of a poorly designed military access system that is worse than the (exploitable) system it replaced.

Strait blocking was not an exploit. Developer decided they wanted to change how it functioned. That's just evolving the game.

Changes to Straits rules come and go. Less evolutionary than waffling, imho Personally, I much prefer the current system, which bears some resemblance one of the old systems (if you go back far enough).

Wiz stated hordes building other units nations was removed because AI never did it. I think that one would go under game evolution and not exploit removal....

It was a long-standing, flavor feature that was useful and entertaining in several niche situations that had nothing to do with Hordes. It was removed purely because Horde players were engaging in badwrongfun. The assertion that it was then being removed because the AI never used it was a pretty lame justification and clearly not Wiz's finest moment.

 

[paulatreides0]

Assertions being made that simply because a feature hung around for a while that it was somehow approved of or thought of as fine, but this is a simply false assumption. Even if a specific feature stuck around for several patches before it got patched out that doesn't mean that it necessarily did so because it was an intended feature or "okay", but for any of a plethora of reasons that ultimately come down to: coding is hard, AI coding is even harder, and devs only have so much time to work with.

Simply because a feature stuck around for a while does not mean it was necessarily intended, but that fixing it is more complex than people assume. For example, the devs might first try to make the AI use a feature properly before getting rid of it because it's too much work to get the AI to use it for too little gain. Otherwise, it could be because fixing the feature results in a bunch of bugs that have to be further addressed. Or because it was an outstanding problem without any decent solution at the time, and thus best left as is instead of doing an immense amount of work to take it out. And, of course, there is always the simple option that devs only have so much time in between patches and that they not only fix things up, but also add tons of content to the game between patches, so they can't go around fixing everything. And the possible reasons keep on going and going.

So no, a feature being around and acting a certain way for a while in no way means that it was intended to work in that capacity to begin with. That's a very simplistic assumption that ignores both the design/improvement process and the large amount of work needed to make even relatively small changes to such a large and complex bunch of a code as what one finds in a game, much less a game as complex and intricate as EUIV.

 

[RobRoy3]

Assertions being made that simply because a feature hung around for a while that it was somehow approved of or thought of as fine, but this is a simply false assumption....

Not entirely sure which feature you're referring to. But, yes, I do think that there should generally be a fairly high bar when replacing features - the more central the feature to game mechanics, the higher the bar. And, yes, that bar increases when those features are long-standing, when players are used to those rules, when developers have given every indication that those rules are intended, and when strategies have been developed with those rules in mind. If a feature has been available since game inception (e.g., recruiting foreign units), suddenly removing it because someone disapproves of the way a small subset of players are using it, is just lame.

Changing rules with the frequency that Paradox does is simply a bad idea. I, for one, don't particularly enjoy relearning the game every patch release. I'd prefer to see bug fixes, not exploit nerfs that introduce new bugs, not new features of questionable value that add layers of complexity without really adding to strategic depth nor enhancing the gamer experience.

Sure, if there a rule is so egregiously flawed as to encourage game behavior that ruins the game, that rule should be changed. Frankly, I'm having trouble thinking of one. But changing core game mechanics simply because some players might use/abuse them in ways the devs hadn't foreseen is a risky proposition, at best, and should be done cautiously, if at all. Generally, they should err on the side on NOT changing core game mechanics.

 

[paulatreides0]

A feature being long standing is by no means indication of it being intended. That is a spurious assumption you are making. In the vast majority of cases they are, but in many cases they also are not. Features can be left in despite not being liked as-is for a multitude of reasons from not enough time to delve into solving them, to posing too much of an immediate pain to solve, to the devs choosing to focus in another direction instead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When used in way unintended by the developer. Yes, developer gets to define it.

Ignoring arguments that destroy what you say doesn't make them go away.

An example of exploit is exiled armies used as spies. Developer decided to code that feature away.
Strait blocking was not an exploit. Developer decided they wanted to change how it functioned. That's just evolving the game.
Wiz stated hordes building other units nations was removed because AI never did it. I think that one would go under game evolution and not exploit removal. But this one is a close call.

edit, another exploit would be the Guarantee /Cancel Guarantee to reset Truce Timer to five years, clearly not working as intended; could be considered a bug and using it was an exploit (but fun and not needed if they hadn't extended the truce period)

So you can't do it after all. Gave some examples of what you believe to be exploits (including a disagreement with Wiz after all). But here is what you failed to do, and failed utterly:

Under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

You can't do it, can you? This question does not ask for examples. Examples do not answer this question. So, why is it that you can't answer this question? Think about your answer carefully.

Assertions being made that simply because a feature hung around for a while that it was somehow approved of or thought of as fine, but this is a simply false assumption.

You're going to ignore the question you can't answer too, aren't you?

BTW developers post-declared both horde foreign core recruitment and using military access for army staging to be exploit territory, despite that these were overt, intended features (in fact the statement wrt foreign core directly contradicted previous statements in bug reports).

But none of that really matters, because there exists no answer to this:

Under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

That is consistent between game mechanics in the current implementation. That means you can argue what is an exploit until you're blue in the face. You can also argue what a rathausesplicer is, and guess what?

Equal meaning.

I don't care about rathausesplicers though. This thread is about unpopular recent changes, and a lot of these unpopular changes are the result of the developers also trying to debate rathausesplicers on the ill-conceived notion that they're actually discussing exploits. Sure, it's "their game". They could even make a unit called "rathausesplicers", give it exclusively to Kochin, hand it 50 pips, and argue it's for balance. Or argue that not having it was previously not intended/exploitative.

Sound ridiculous? But it has equal basis to many changes actually implemented in the game, because the answer to the bold question above is not consistent between mechanics, and neither is "Under what conditions is an option in the game too strong relative to others, meriting change".

 

[Quaade]

You're dodging the crucial factor of the discussion, which is consistent criteria that differentiates exploits from standard gameplay. If you accept that anything is potentially an exploit, it loses meaning as a term. If you're trying to argue that playing the game is exploitative, then fine, but if not you're dodging the question .

Anything is potentially exploity, but there is a difference between gameplay and exploits, where you as a player use an advantage consistently that AI can´t or won´t do, which creates an unbalanced or unintended purpose... Like Ming being trapped, where you gave military access to all countries so he could go near you with his amry, then just before or in the middle you revoke access, trapping his armies and making his lands easy pickings... I think that even you can agree that this isn´t intentionally how it´s supposed to be played and serves no purpose but to give you an advantage that´s close to cheating... And perhaps that´s just what exploits really are, related to cheats if that´s make´s it easier...

Based on your "basically": Making alliances is an exploit. Building armies is an exploit. Researching technologies is an exploit.

No, those are game concepts and all are being done by AI to a great extend, like Aus-Fra-Otto alliance

That´s also why purpose and intentions are the best way to describe it, and the changes to alliances and CoA was also made because some parts of the alliances were being exploited and used as attack-dogs (actually thinks it´s easier know, but more detailed).

The only differentiating factor between the above and say, using military access to base troops in advance is "intention". Defending in mountains is considered an extremely advantageous tactic, more consistently applicable across games than strait blocking. But defending in mountains wasn't defined as an exploit...and neither is a "you can only win by doing this" tactic!

Defending in terrain is a military tactic (that I don´t agree should happen like that when you control the sieged fort), and really has little relevance... You can´t really win the war by sitting on the mountain and defending since your forts would be sieged down, and I find AI a bit harder to trick like the old days, but far from impossible... But as it goes, being defender in mountains, is really not something you control much of, other than placing your troops and trying to lure the enemy.

Even with player-to-player, this would have even less to say since we can see it´s a mountain and will simply go around... So you could do something about it, with strait blocks prior, you could do nothing about if you had no ships or had too few of them... Blocking the entire Ottoman army of 100 on an island really sounds exploity... But I must give you, that this is entirely a programmer mistake... What on earth are 100k soldiers doing there in the first place, yes it had a fort... Take 6 and a few more to counter attrition, well the enemy is near, take a few more then...

Sorta miss blocking, but I agree with devs that it was unbalanced as it were, since you could do nothing about it.

As for balance, it's a tricky topic with a game that's unbalanced on purpose and should be unbalanced.

I think you mix up the two terms by their own standards, so you essentially use the same word for two different things... Unbalanced on purpose refers to (I guess) changes in sizes, like Otto and Trebizond not being balanced by each other, but that´s really not a great comparison due to their differing sizes, then there´s the tech difference that´s unbalancing... But you really need compare them against common nominators before you can talk about what´s balancing... If I make any sense... It´s early morning here, sitting with my coffee ;-)

I agree the game should be challenging and unbalanced in some parts, and even like how France was nerfed both for player and AI´s sake... Will even go as far as to say (forbidden words) that Byz could really be made more challenging... But on the other hands, I don´t see devs portray much in the sense of ahistoric scenarios when they do succed... There´s a lack of what-if that should be able to do as a player and hold some benefits, as should the waning and waxing of an empire or nation... Like Byz if they did manage to keep alive, would they become more western or inspire a new golden age for themselves, what if natives began to develop new techniques in 1480 which removed the tech cost and made them a tech-heaven before Europe got there...

Actually think natives are kinda OP, well at least Nahautl and Inca, haven´t tried NA in a while. But passing the reforms, taking ideas instead of teching too much, since you get a lot of free tech anyway the moment you meet a westerner and you could use the points to westernize... But really, I would like reforms being harder to pass, choices between them being harder since you likely can´t do them all and have all benefits from them, but each of them should also decrease the tech penalty... And at some point, remove the penalty to building ships...

"under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

When close to cheating...

edit, another exploit would be the Guarantee /Cancel Guarantee to reset Truce Timer to five years, clearly not working as intended; could be considered a bug and using it was an exploit (but fun and not needed if they hadn't extended the truce period)

Yes, that was not a purpose... Though I did realize that revoking guarantee while still having a truce, didn´t extend the truce time... So it´s still seems to apply in some extent... Will check this more today...

You can't do it, can you? This question does not ask for examples. Examples do not answer this question. So, why is it that you can't answer this question? Think about your answer carefully.

Well it´s easy to sit in the corner and reject all proposals, sometimes it´s just not that easy to make a definitive rule that fits all cases and even if we´re able to, you would find some case that couldn´t fit, an exception and you would likely say it didn´t apply in general... Or you simply can´t accept an answer that goes against your beliefs or simply you want a specific answer that no one but you knows what is...

It´s like asking, what colour is the sky... You can´t answer that definitively... Nor can you answer, what is darkness...

 

[Freudia]

Actually think natives are kinda OP, well at least Nahautl and Inca, haven´t tried NA in a while. But passing the reforms, taking ideas instead of teching too much, since you get a lot of free tech anyway the moment you meet a westerner and you could use the points to westernize... But really, I would like reforms being harder to pass, choices between them being harder since you likely can´t do them all and have all benefits from them, but each of them should also decrease the tech penalty... And at some point, remove the penalty to building ships...

If we are talking about multiplayer, no nation in the New World has ever been viable compared to a standard starting position. If we're talking about vs AI, everything is functionally overpowered vs the AI, which means that you'd have to view things in comparison to each other (will I succeed more as a Native in the New World or would I succeed more in a typical start like France or Castile?), and then you can plainly see that a player can not accomplish anywhere near as much as a nation in the New World as they could as a nation in the Old World. This isn't debatable. This is fact.

The whole post wasn't to me, but I couldn't let that point stand.

 

[Quaade]

If we are talking about multiplayer, no nation in the New World has ever been viable compared to a standard starting position. If we're talking about vs AI, everything is functionally overpowered vs the AI, which means that you'd have to view things in comparison to each other (will I succeed more as a Native in the New World or would I succeed more in a typical start like France or Castile?), and then you can plainly see that a player can not accomplish anywhere near as much as a nation in the New World as they could as a nation in the Old World. This isn't debatable. This is fact.

The whole post wasn't to me, but I couldn't let that point stand.

Reforming religion gives 5 bonuses that applies after westernization, these bonuses along with traditions, ambitions and selected ideas is an advantage... But they have some drawbacks sure, especially in MP...

 

[ahyangyi]

I generally agree with whatever TheMeInTeam says. However, he seems to have a particular hate for the word "exploit".

The problem is you assume that everything has a pre-defined purpose. You assume when the developers made the first version of EU4 they had a clear view of what the game should be. They didn't. They had some vague ideas based on the experiences of EU3 and some general directions to look at. Just as we are learning this game, the developers are learning too. They come back to revisit old designs, removing the features they don't like, adding the features they think are worth a try (and can make money). The result is the players, the developers and the game itself are growing and evolving together.

I agree that the current state of EU4 isn't particularly coherent. Many design decisions are weird. Forts are wonky. Idea groups are unbalanced. However, what's an exploit and what's not should be defined whimsically, by the developers. Because the EU today isn't the EU yesterday, forcing us to stick to a single definition is more stupid than letting the developers dictate. Maybe we should use a versionning system though, like "according to Johann in Jan 14, 2016, blabla is an exploit, but I don't agree." I don't see why can't we discuss in this way.

Let's face it, the devs don't ban players from "using exploits". There's no fines, no account blocks, nothing. Saying something is an exploit isn't accusing anyone, they just want to make the game better. If something is done in poor judgment, focus on the poor judgment itself, not the definition of the word "exploit".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Anything is potentially exploity, but there is a difference between gameplay and exploits, where you as a player use an advantage consistently that AI can´t or won´t do, which creates an unbalanced or unintended purpose... Like Ming being trapped, where you gave military access to all countries so he could go near you with his amry, then just before or in the middle you revoke access, trapping his armies and making his lands easy pickings... I think that even you can agree that this isn´t intentionally how it´s supposed to be played and serves no purpose but to give you an advantage that´s close to cheating... And perhaps that´s just what exploits really are, related to cheats if that´s make´s it easier...

Here's the problem with your paragraph: You are able to identify a tactic you believe to be an exploit (military access, ironically implemented this way to prevent exploits). However, it doesn't match your statement. For example, the player can routinely use estates to secure (and consistently run) discounted advisors. The AI does not do this consistently, it rarely does it at all. Therefore, according to your criteria using estates to run less expensive advisors is an exploit, something "unbalanced" because the AI can't do it.

As a hint, military access abuse can trivialize the importance of a resource in the context of that war, whereas estate advisors can't trivialize a resource and using them carries risk. But if you don't think in these terms, you can't come up with consistent reasoning, and that doesn't change whether it's you, me, or the developers.

No, those are game concepts

"Basically, you either win only by using this or you are at the receiving end of it..." --> You didn't list that as a criteria, previously. That's why I'm asking for consistency. Blocking armies crossing straits was a game concept too, and it provided a hell of a lot less utility on a far less consistent basis, yet you're still seeing people cry exploit over using it.

Defending in terrain is a military tactic (that I don´t agree should happen like that when you control the sieged fort), and really has little relevance... You can´t really win the war by sitting on the mountain and defending

I don't know about you, but if I want the AI to engage me in the mountains, I can still make the AI engage me in the mountains. You're missing the obvious point though. Defending in the mountains 100% fits criteria that one might use to claim strait blocking exploitative.

Actually think natives are kinda OP, well at least Nahautl and Inca, haven´t tried NA in a while

This is laughingstock levels bad. If you westernize as soon as you possibly can with a lot of starts, you will not catch up tech/ideas as a *player* until 1700, and that's if you hire 3/3/3 advisors the instant you finish westernizing. That's "OP"? No, that's the kind of pathetic that Garwhal with its generic ideas can surpass with above average play.

When close to cheating...

No. I asked for actual criteria. The fact that nobody seems to be able to do it, including but certainly not limited to developers, speaks volumes. It's the loudest message in this thread.

If people really believed what they say about these tactics, if they were really, truly honest...they could cough up that criteria. Failing to do so...yet still asserting things are exploits or not while demonstrably showing one lacks any conception of consistent criteria to even define the term for themselves...is overt bias.

Well it´s easy to sit in the corner and reject all proposals

You're usually much better than this. This is a fallacy. I'm not "rejecting all proposals". FFS, I'm asking that you actually MAKE a proposal in the first place, that doesn't self-contradict.

It´s like asking, what colour is the sky... You can´t answer that definitively... Nor can you answer, what is darkness...

No. You can define a precise level of light that constitutes "darkness" that is non-zero in advance. So long as you have that define, you can then *consistently* evaluate whether a given amount of light is sufficient or insufficient to reach that definition. Someone else might define it differently, but no matter what they pick or you pick, you can still measure if it's at that threshold.

But what you, many other posters, and the development team is doing is changing the definition of "darkness" each time they measure the amount of light. That's the contrast between what I am asking, and what you are saying.

The problem is you assume that everything has a pre-defined purpose. You assume when the developers made the first version of EU4 they had a clear view of what the game should be. They didn't

Johan claimed his vision for the game didn't chance since EU 2 or something .

But I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for the answer to "what makes us evaluate a change as required or good for the game". Sometimes, such as when a bug causes crashes that prevent players from playing it, it's pretty obvious. Being able to play the game is an easy criteria to set.

But it's not always so easy. The developers are human beings. Even if your goal changes, there should be some current picture of the goal, some criteria you can *measure* to determine if an action takes you towards that goal or away from it.

I agree that the current state of EU4 isn't particularly coherent. Many design decisions are weird. Forts are wonky. Idea groups are unbalanced. However, what's an exploit and what's not should be defined whimsically, by the developers.

No. That's how you get military access =/= military access. What *should* be done is that as the vision/game changes, you update the criteria. That prevents people from "filling in the bottom line" before going through the steps to see what the actual bottom line is.

forcing us to stick to a single definition is more stupid than letting the developers dictate.

What is stupid, is not defining the term at all and lying to yourself and others that it's happening. If the developers *actually* defined the term, ever, then they'd have the answer to this question:

"Under what conditions would you evaluate a tactic to be exploitative?"

As you say, the criteria for that can look different between patch 1.3 and patch 1.14. But if you don't have the criteria, if you can't answer that question, then the assertion that anything along the lines of a "definition of exploit" going on is a lie.

I generally agree with whatever TheMeInTeam says. However, he seems to have a particular hate for the word "exploit".

There is no difference between whimsically calling tactic x "exploit" and whimsically calling tactic x "stooge cheese", except that one carries the implication of something that didn't actually happen.

 

[DSwann]

I still don't grasp the concept of Estates. Some demand land but I don't know which provinces are "best" to grant and especially in 1.14 this had direct impacts on autonomy so this had other consequences to the wrinkle. They just seem to add another flavor of micromanagement that I do not find enjoyable. A constant balance juggle loyalty and influence with more abstract button clicks and events; I just don't get why I should care when I am railroaded into a situation where I don't have much freedom at all in implementation. If I could automate this micromanagement or turn off Estates, I could enjoy EUIV again. I shouldn't have to turn off the entire Cossacks DLC to just disable Estates.

 

[War_lord]

Estates really aren't that hard to keep in check.