Unpopular Recent Changes

[TheMeInTeam]

That's not the same argument. Previous poster was using research about how we (usually incorrectly) justify or explain opinions that we have, typically after-the-fact. This is different from making game design decisions in an arbitrary or random manner.

Those after-the-fact opinions are given on the game design decisions made in an arbitrary manner. They're not the same thing, but they're related, and they certainly contribute to the thread topic (IE unpopular changes are usually less popular if biased/incorrect justifications arise in their defense, and rarely more).

"Pay-to-win" as a phrase has a pretty specific definition. Either it lets you gain an advantage over other players by spending money they didn't spend, or it lets you bypass in-game obstacles by spending money.

Okay. At least we're not lost here. That's pretty close to how I would define it as well.

The first is obviously false as all players in a multiplayer game play with the same DLC enabled (specifically, all of that owned by the host, even for players that never spent a dime on any of them).

Not all game comparisons are in MP games. At least some people compare notes on achievements (evidenced on forum posts) and having vs not having DLC creates an apples-to-oranges comparison. In some cases, a given approach is not even possible without DLC or the achievement is literally impossible without it (like the Trebizond one).

But this is the lesser offender of your definition.

The second is typically applied in a context of free "stamina" in F2P games, or instant heals and other types of "cheats" in other games, which also clearly doesn't apply here.

Here you apply a different standard than your definition.

Monarch points expenditure requirements are an obstacle. DLC gives you more/lets you distribute them more readily (including focusing values to an extent only possible in DLC). Liberty desire is an obstacle. DLC lets you trivialize it. Autonomy is an obstacle, and recently patched to be larger. DLC content removes its penalty entirely for one of three estates (while you're strictly worse off on income without it).

Even if you want to argue that it technically meets the definition because it enables all these cool new things

No, I will argue harsher than that. I will argue that in multiple cases, Pdox introduced a problem (coring/dip annex cost increase, liberty desire) then turned around and sold the cure in DLC (cheap estates advisors/demanding monarch points, subject interaction/grant province). Even beyond such overt pay to win modeling, DLC features such as aforementioned NF, treasure fleets, support independence, ability to manually grade to empire rank, switch governments, and access extra religion benefits all confer varying degrees of benefits that offset obstacles the development team introduced through regular patches.

Regardless, there are multiple actions that were patched to be made non-viable deliberately...unless you happen to pick up the DLC, then suddenly you can still do them. I'm not the one reaching here.

So even with the most relaxed and forgiving definition possible, there are instances that run counter to your claims.

A pay to win model does not require all DLC to provide an advantage. Unit packs are pretty much universally agreed to confer no mechanical in-game advantage, same with music.

In short, it's disingenuous misuse of the phrase in a way intended to be inflammatory, appealing to emotion to try to rally other players to oppose the DLC model by framing it as something it isn't.

Speaking of disingenuous, this is a rather flimsy ad hominem. Who's "trying to rally players" to do anything? Jomini and I both called out an obvious pay-to-win model, show me where either of us advocated that others should act based on that though?

Maybe, rather than "trying to be inflammatory", you can not put words in my mouth . This *is* a thread about *unpopular* changes, so by default we're going to be discussing things we don't like, and there is credible reasoning to dislike a pay to win model. It's more disingenuous to claim the patch + DLC history (including older stuff like how vassal feeding evolved into a paid feature in AoW) isn't a scenario where players can pay to obtain a substantial advantage compared to if they don't, especially when they're paying to retain their ability to do something.

 

[Spidernova]

I would just like to express that the game now exiting to desktop and restarting when I exit to menu is rather annoying.

 

[net.split]

Not all game comparisons are in MP games. At least some people compare notes on achievements (evidenced on forum posts) and having vs not having DLC creates an apples-to-oranges comparison. In some cases, a given approach is not even possible without DLC or the achievement is literally impossible without it (like the Trebizond one).

This gets shaky really fast. Logic used to enable this achievement comparison could be used on, say, DLC for an RPG that adds story past the end of the previous game and increases the level limit. Is this "pay-to-win"? It lets you reach a higher level than without it, after all. But nobody thinks of these things as pay-to-win. But you do acknowledge that this is a lesser quibble.

Monarch points expenditure requirements are an obstacle. DLC gives you more/lets you distribute them more readily (including focusing values to an extent only possible in DLC). Liberty desire is an obstacle. DLC lets you trivialize it. Autonomy is an obstacle, and recently patched to be larger. DLC content removes its penalty entirely for one of three estates (while you're strictly worse off on income without it).

Perhaps the problem is that we aren't using the same definition for "win." In my view these things are irrelevant because the AI states experience the same situation as yours. Is the game as a whole harder or easier if expanding is cheaper or more costly for every nation? The answer to that is fairly situational; it probably benefits a larger nation player start while hurting a smaller nation player start (relative to the AI). You could also define "win" as "grow as big as possible by a certain date," but I don't think the game is explicitly providing that definition (Score at least includes many other aspects of your nation). Maybe some achievements become easier, but maybe others become harder; I haven't analyzed them all to see if there's a solid pattern.

I don't see these things as problematic probably because I don't play the same as you (though maybe I'm justifying my views inaccurately, heh). I've never played a single Ironman game and won't be starting one any time soon. I treat it more like a sandbox where I define a unique objective for each playthrough to try to achieve. In that way the game is like any other sandbox game I play, such as various open-world RPGs (where ignoring the main story is often expected behavior).

No, I will argue harsher than that. I will argue that in multiple cases, Pdox introduced a problem (coring/dip annex cost increase, liberty desire) then turned around and sold the cure in DLC (cheap estates advisors/demanding monarch points, subject interaction/grant province). Even beyond such overt pay to win modeling, DLC features such as aforementioned NF, treasure fleets, support independence, ability to manually grade to empire rank, switch governments, and access extra religion benefits all confer varying degrees of benefits that offset obstacles the development team introduced through regular patches.

And in other cases DLC introduced new obstacles to continued expansion, such as Common Sense's development improvement increasing overall conquest coring costs, or Cossack's Favor system making it harder for minor starts to expand due to delayed acquisition of favors for offensive war calls. This bit also ties in to the above section, and I'll finish the thought two sections below (thinking this partial quote stuff has outlived its usefulness).

Regardless, there are multiple actions that were patched to be made non-viable deliberately...unless you happen to pick up the DLC, then suddenly you can still do them. I'm not the one reaching here.

Or refuse the patch, which isn't something pay-to-win productions tend to make available as an option as it directly violates the business model.

A pay to win model does not require all DLC to provide an advantage. Unit packs are pretty much universally agreed to confer no mechanical in-game advantage, same with music.

No, but it suggests another likely scenario of the game simply changing over time. If you focus purely on the list of changes that makes expansion more costly (for the player and the player's opposition, mind) then it might look bad, but that's also not a very complete picture.

Speaking of disingenuous, this is a rather flimsy ad hominem. Who's "trying to rally players" to do anything? Jomini and I both called out an obvious pay-to-win model, show me where either of us advocated that others should act based on that though?

Maybe, rather than "trying to be inflammatory", you can not put words in my mouth .

That's fair. I apologize.


These games are as open as they can be. They reveal most of the settings in text documents that anyone can go edit. There's plenty of options at game start to control the difficulty. They empower mods that let you get around the majority of mechanics in the game in whatever way you choose. Pay-to-win models simply don't do these things. I grant that you can find some elements that are comparable, and I will concede that the DLC model can be less than optimal for players with a specific playstyle. I can't in good faith accept the pay-to-win label for EU4, and if you honestly believe that it is in fact applicable, I hope you at least accept that it would be the most aggressively consumer-friendly application of the model on the market.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps the problem is that we aren't using the same definition for "win." In my view these things are irrelevant because the AI states experience the same situation as yours.

I know you're saying this, but do you really truly believe it?

Is the game as a whole harder or easier if expanding is cheaper or more costly for every nation? The answer to that is fairly situational; it probably benefits a larger nation player start while hurting a smaller nation player start (relative to the AI).

The answer to your question is trivially found by the answer to "who typically expands more effectively on average, the player or the AI?". Is the player outperforming the AI in expansion situational now? That's news to me.

The following paragraph, talking about how you play the game, is irrelevant. Same for how I play it. That's tangential to this topic.

Cossack's Favor system making it harder for minor starts to expand due to delayed acquisition of favors for offensive war calls.

No, this is not a counter-example. It's yet another example of pay-to-win. Patch 1.11 --> call people as much as you want. Patch 1.14 --> you can only call people every 10 years, UNLESS you buy access to a favor system that, when properly managed, lets you call people more frequently and/or promise land instead. Create a problem, sell the solution.

Or refuse the patch, which isn't something pay-to-win productions tend to make available as an option as it directly violates the business model.

The "refuse the patch" line of thinking creates a scenario whereby you're constrained to retaining bugs/losing the community aspect of the game OR taking the paid DLC consideration. It's not as overt as simply denying previous patches, but considering the game state changes vs advertisement in the DLC leaving previous patches available is a pretty solid fallback/failsafe for not a lot of work. It was a good choice and I have no problem with it.

No, but it suggests another likely scenario of the game simply changing over time. If you focus purely on the list of changes that makes expansion more costly (for the player and the player's opposition, mind) then it might look bad, but that's also not a very complete picture.

Yet at the end of the day, you're still having actions taken away/made non-viable while regaining access to them through paid DLC, and you are still paying for an advantage in many cases. Setting the standard at "this is less egregious than dungeon keeper" isn't useful. I concede that there are far worse offenders out there, Jomini probably would too but I will leave that for him to say or not say. That doesn't change the reality of it happening to an extent in this game, repeatedly.

 

[Harlehus]

Welcome ladies and gents to another episode of "Battle of Minds: EUIV-forum!"

This time we watch as a random thread turns into a heated and passionate discussion about how to make this great game even greater. Isn't it just great?

Tune in next time as we prepare to take this battle even further when we are joined by the demi-gods themselves, the devs!

 

[net.split]

I know you're saying this, but do you really truly believe it?

Yes. That's how I evaluate strategy games.

The answer to your question is trivially found by the answer to "who typically expands more effectively on average, the player or the AI?". Is the player outperforming the AI in expansion situational now? That's news to me.

That's not the only important question. Expansion efficiency is the only thing that matters to a player at your skill level for the majority of the nation starts you'd ever choose, but for many players in many situations it can be more of a question of survival. However we might try to define "win," we can certainly define "lose" as the game has an actual game over state.

If you're choosing to play as a small nation, rapid expansion ability is critical to your ability to survive and not lose. So in this case, patches that slow expansion might hurt you. But if you choose a powerful nation at game start, out the gate you have a pretty solid ability to survive. It's only if the AI outpaces the player that the player could arrive at the loss condition, and slowing expansion for everyone makes it harder for the AI to do this, resulting in an easier game for the player (in terms of survival).

You might find concern over whether a player starting as the Ottomans really needs to worry about survival to be ludicrous, but players come in all skill levels. I wonder what the average ability of an EU4 player is? I'm sure Paradox knows with the metrics they collect, but I don't think it's been shared.

What has been shared is that the majority of people play as custom nations or as one of the various powerful starts. To me this suggests a lower skill level is common, though other conclusions are also possible.

No, this is not a counter-example. It's yet another example of pay-to-win. Patch 1.11 --> call people as much as you want. Patch 1.14 --> you can only call people every 10 years, UNLESS you buy access to a favor system that, when properly managed, lets you call people more frequently and/or promise land instead. Create a problem, sell the solution.

You start with no favor when you first form an alliance, so a small nation start has to wait for favor to accumulate in order to begin conquering (or promise provinces, which results in strengthening likely future foes further). A thread was just posted about this where a Cossacks player complained that this was making their game a lot harder as everyone around them would grow faster.

Admittedly I can't really talk to the details. I didn't buy Cossacks yet as I don't want to pay full price for what it offers.

The "refuse the patch" line of thinking creates a scenario whereby you're constrained to retaining bugs/losing the community aspect of the game OR taking the paid DLC consideration. It's not as overt as simply denying previous patches, but considering the game state changes vs advertisement in the DLC leaving previous patches available is a pretty solid fallback/failsafe for not a lot of work. It was a good choice and I have no problem with it.

Yeah, there's certainly weaknesses to the method, but what can you do? If not for paid DLC we wouldn't have any patches past 1.3 anyway, at least according to Wiz. Weirdly, if Paradox just didn't put out any free patches at all once the DLC started, they'd probably avoid complaints of pay-to-win despite this being even less consumer-friendly.

Yet at the end of the day, you're still having actions taken away/made non-viable while regaining access to them through paid DLC, and you are still paying for an advantage in many cases. Setting the standard at "this is less egregious than dungeon keeper" isn't useful. I concede that there are far worse offenders out there, Jomini probably would too but I will leave that for him to say or not say. That doesn't change the reality of it happening to an extent in this game, repeatedly.

I wish I had articulated this in the beginning, but understanding came about due to all the thinking on the topic that this discussion has spurned. For me, "pay-to-win" is a revolting concept that instantly turns me away from the game. The reason is that, in basically every application where I see the term used, payment is used to subvert gameplay. The game throws fake difficulty at you with no sensible way around it (other than, if you're lucky, investing a lot of time -- and I'm talking more about grinding for weeks rather than sitting on speed 5 for a bit), then offers you the ability to pay money to bypass the obstacle. In other words, there's really only the appearance of a game; any vestige of "gameplay" is a pretense. There is no way to improve; you must simply pay money to continue playing without losing. The opposition gets unfair advantages, or the mechanism for advancing requires a ludicrous amount of real-life time that very few would be willing to invest.

EU4 doesn't do this. You can apply all the patches and none of the DLC, and you'll still have an interesting and (generally) fair game that's fun and provides challenge. Your game won't randomly be invaded by a player that demolishes your country because they spent a bunch of money on free armies. The AI won't use DLC-locked features against you (excepting bugs, which get fixed). And you can reject any patch that modifies the game in a way that you don't approve of. In these ways, EU4's pattern avoids the anti-consumer and anti-player tropes associated with the pay-to-win model. If someone else wants to apply the label regardless because of other criteria, that's fine, but it can easily be misleading (as is the case here; if I knew exactly what was meant I probably wouldn't have started this diversion because I don't care about those things).

 

[Jomini]

This is not the correct context in which to apply that information.

Why not? The only evidence presented is that Johan decided one day to increase province count. His team then made it happen because it was not an obviously bad idea (like if oh say the engine were near the hardware limits and that many more instantiations would lead to crawl).

It's been noted that Johan has been the lead designer for EU4 and previous versions. This (having one person basically making these kinds of decisions) is common. This doesn't mean his decisions are fully arbitrary; it would be literally impossible to craft a game by designing it arbitrarily. Games are defined as a set of rules, and if they're written in an arbitrary manner then the game simply won't function or make any sense at all.

Nice job torching the strawman.

No one ever designs a full game arbitrarily, such a moronic suggestion has never been stated or implied by anyone here.

Instead we have said that "many" decisions show evidence of being arbitrary and not the product of formal or informal meetings & well integrated design choices.

Of course. I've also worked with military software. Medical software is arguably even worse. That's not the context we're dealing with, though.

Yes it is. If you are going to have a dev process that has highly integrated and consistent design goals that govern development one of the first things to go is kludging. Kludges mean that your coordination time goes up massively and makes it much more efficient to strip back and redesign.

EUIV shows a lot more dev independence than most of the games I have experience with (caveat: this is and CKII are the only games I have played in the last few years).

Come on :\

Funny, when TMIT gets annoyed about people over using terms like "exploit", you do not care. His request for precision is utterly ignored.

Yet when you do not like my phrasing of how each free patch has made the game significantly more challenging while many of the DLC have removed a lot of those challenges is worthy of ignoring the rest of the point.

Please. Pdox is the only gaming company worth my time. EUIV is the only title that is immersive enough and robust enough to hold my attention to draw me to the boards. I gave up, long ago, on the major players in the industry because their quality was terrible, their willingness to learn from their community was non-existent, and they fine tuned their products around high churn products.

What disappoints me of late is the tendency to turn everything into a waiting game - oh hey let us leave all the mechanics the same ... just make you literally have to sit there longer to get enough MP to core something. Oh you want to do jackall as a RoTW power with the big boys, here for no reason at all have an extra tech to wait through. Good strategy maximizes your non-trivial decisions per unit time, making the resource management (with very little time tension) paramount actively goes the wrong way.

Likewise, at some point we need to have functions that Pdox actually trusts to guide the AI. Insurmountable modifiers take away choices. England and France managed to ally historically for brief periods of convergent goals, yet somehow -1000 you rivaled me still is kicking around. Similarly, the AI still has plenty of huge modifiers that you cannot induce them to join in a war, but just in case we will have a favor system for the heck of it.

Lastly, I despise the dynamic TMIT describes. Call it whatever the hell you want, but Pdox has taken to upsetting a balance that players liked ... and then restoring it (sometimes more, sometimes less) in the DLC only. This means that I can no longer gift their games to young family members as the experience is now decidedly subpar in just the base game and I will not be putting nieces and nephews into a position where they need to spend a hundred bucks a year to stay up to date (particularly as several of their parents have hard limits on what they can spend on games, even with their own money). Are Pdox the worst offender here? Heck no. In my estimation they were one of the last holdouts. I just miss the days when I could hand over a copy of the game and say well this will be good for a year or three, no strings attached, enjoy. Am I grateful that they keep the old patches open? Yes, given current industry practices this is one of the best options and I begrudge no one the option to make a living selling their product in the manner they think is best (may not agree that this is the best for them, but it is a mostly free world).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. That's how I evaluate strategy games.

Ouch. I can't ignore evidence to that degree. The AI very obviously does *not* share the game state with the player. It's given bonuses and not independently of DLC, but its understanding and capabilities with the DLC mechanics and how they interact with are obviously not on the same level as the human player. Claiming that this isn't going to affect the game situation seems over-optimistic.

That's not the only important question. Expansion efficiency is the only thing that matters to a player at your skill level for the majority of the nation starts you'd ever choose, but for many players in many situations it can be more of a question of survival. However we might try to define "win," we can certainly define "lose" as the game has an actual game over state.

I'm not grasping the utility of this + next several paragraphs in the framework of your position. Generally speaking, mechanics that provide the player more potential advantage than the AI improve the player's chances for survival in addition to potential for doing well. If you're picking something like Ottomans, the lose condition is unlikely regardless, but probably still somewhat easier to avoid when the player is conferred more advantages.

You start with no favor when you first form an alliance, so a small nation start has to wait for favor to accumulate in order to begin conquering (or promise provinces, which results in strengthening likely future foes further).

Promising provinces is sound. Sometimes you don't care about giving land to your buddy, and sometimes you can find ways to avoid the penalty for not doing so. Granted, the game is bugged and there are also conditions under which you can give what would otherwise be sufficient land and have the game not count it, but presumably we shouldn't be considering bugs too much for the purposes of this discussion (I consider fake difficulty to be unacceptable in this genre regardless of DLC).