Victory Points

[Powerslave]

I am very glad that Paradox is developing EU 3. I am sure that they will do an excellent job as they almost always do. I think their biggest strenght is in designing the games.

I know that most hardcore gamers that is active in this forum doesn't care about VPs in EU 2. But for the rest of us VP is important. VP should be a good measurement how well you have engineered your nation throughout the whole game. Perhaps your nation had its glory during th 16th century but fell back and ends up as a medium sized nation at the end of the game, with a good VP system you still might end up as one of the best but withouth one you think the game was a failure due to the medium sized nation at the end. Also if a good VP system is used not only conquests will lead to victory but also exploration, inventions, influence and etc could win you the game.

I also hope that Paradox if having a VP system at all softcode as much of it as possible. That would make the job of scenario makers alot easier.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Useful only if it actually would do something, like aid in diplomacy.. or perhaps even aiding in getting better generals (everyone wants to fight in the winning team )

But as meaningless points, no thanks!

 

[unmerged(6147)]

No, they do not need to "do" anything. It is simply a question of giving the gamer a possibility to rank his achievements in different games and compare with others. Many people believe that is fun.

In fact, almost all games have a numerical measurement. Even EU. The problem with the EU system, compared for example that used in football, hockey, track and fields, and many many computer games, was that it did not reflect very well how good the player did perform. That is what some of us now ask for.

It is indeed, IMO, one of the more important things in EU3. It has nothing to do with the game play as you suggest. LOL, do you think that if a football team led another by 1-0 then that should directly influence the game, like them being allowed to take the ball with their hands Well, neither should it in EU.

 

[unmerged(20873)]

Exactly, VP's shouldn't do anything.

 

[Matija]

No, they do not need to "do" anything. It is simply a question of giving the gamer a possibility to rank his achievements in different games and compare with others. Many people believe that is fun.

*signs*

 

[Powerslave]

No, they do not need to "do" anything. It is simply a question of giving the gamer a possibility to rank his achievements in different games and compare with others. Many people believe that is fun.

In fact, almost all games have a numerical measurement. Even EU. The problem with the EU system, compared for example that used in football, hockey, track and fields, and many many computer games, was that it did not reflect very well how good the player did perform. That is what some of us now ask for.

It is indeed, IMO, one of the more important things in EU3. It has nothing to do with the game play as you suggest. LOL, do you think that if a football team led another by 1-0 then that should directly influence the game, like them being allowed to take the ball with their hands Well, neither should it in EU.

Well put Daniel. You are so much better to articulate than me.

 

[Duuk]

No, they do not need to "do" anything. It is simply a question of giving the gamer a possibility to rank his achievements in different games and compare with others. Many people believe that is fun.

In fact, almost all games have a numerical measurement. Even EU. The problem with the EU system, compared for example that used in football, hockey, track and fields, and many many computer games, was that it did not reflect very well how good the player did perform. That is what some of us now ask for.

It is indeed, IMO, one of the more important things in EU3. It has nothing to do with the game play as you suggest. LOL, do you think that if a football team led another by 1-0 then that should directly influence the game, like them being allowed to take the ball with their hands Well, neither should it in EU.

I completely disagree. I'd like to see VP have a meaningful in-game effect, like ability to attract explorers, likelihood of diplomatic successes, and other events.

 

[Stonewall]

It is indeed, IMO, one of the more important things in EU3. It has nothing to do with the game play as you suggest. LOL, do you think that if a football team led another by 1-0 then that should directly influence the game, like them being allowed to take the ball with their hands Well, neither should it in EU.

I disagree. I'd like to see VP's go away and prestige system implemented that has a minimal but noticeable impact on actual gameplay. Not every 2 countries are alike and diplomacy was arguably the most important factor in the time period of the game. The Habsburgs didn't become the power they were through military conquest. They did it through diplomacy and prestige. And Royal Marriages.

The soccer example is faulty. When a team takes a 1-0 lead is absolutely impacts the way the other team has to play. No more playing for the draw. They need to score twice to win. If affects the way the team in the lead plays. It affects the way the crowd in the stands reacts depending on which side they are for. In the end, it affects everything. I'd love top see a system of prestige or something like that that a player or ai can influence the actions of other countries through its power, either military or diplomatic. Or whereby it can gain benefits to itself, such as attracting explorers or mercenary captains.

 

[Sleepyhead]

I never really liked VP's
It's better to have seperate modifiers similar to CK and Vicky with military score and prestige but perhaps not piety and industrial score.

 

[BiB]

I completely disagree. I'd like to see VP have a meaningful in-game effect, like ability to attract explorers, likelihood of diplomatic successes, and other events.

That sounds like prestige.

 

[BiB]

And I wouldn't care iof VPs weren't there anymore. They were mostly ignored and added little (if anything) to the game.

So to be useful it'd have to be improved upon a lot and I'd rather they focus on other matters.

 

[Sute]{h]

I prefer Prestige to victory points. Every player I know personally usually evaluates their game not by the amount of VP, but rather on the amount of provinces they own by the end of the game. That even goes for those who prefer not playing for WC.

 

[Nikolai]

And I wouldn't care iof VPs weren't there anymore. They were mostly ignored and added little (if anything) to the game.

So to be useful it'd have to be improved upon a lot and I'd rather they focus on other matters.

I agree totally. Prestuge would be fine I'm sure.

 

[Duuk]

That sounds like prestige.

I'm good with that

But if this discussion is more of a "score" discussion for VP...

1) Whoops, sorry... I wandered into the wrong thread

2) Doesn't matter to me. If they are IN, they should be calculated to mean something, if they aren't in, no big loss.

 

[Powerslave]

I realize that most hardcore paradox gamers are not interested but the avarage gamer for sure is. Hopefully EU 3 will sell in large volumes that'l bring many people in that wants something numerical value on how good they did.

Perhaps it's because I'm an old avid boardgamer. One of the main reasons I have not yet played a MP game in EU 2 is because of the lack of a good way to determine the winner, runner up and so on. I see that most of the mp games that determines winners at all do this based on the map configuration/military strenght at the end of the game. There are so many aspects to this game (EU 2) than just the conquest one and I would like all of them to count against victory. Also since this game streches through several centuries I think that even if your nations haydays where during the 16th century that should count against a final victory.

 

[BiB]

The fun of MP is in the playing

 

[Mowers]

I completely disagree. I'd like to see VP have a meaningful in-game effect, like ability to attract explorers, likelihood of diplomatic successes, and other events.

That prestige controlled who could buy what on the world market was a game breaker for me in many respects. If we are going to use prestige its got to be carefully done - if at all.

A better system might be a relative economic, social, culture and military success rating that is scored every year and goes through a multiplyer to see how a player is doing compared to his start point and mid points during game.

 

[Powerslave]

The fun of MP is in the playing

Actually you are quite right BiB. I'm just one of those crazy guys that likes to compete when playing games. For me the fun in MP gaming is trying to win... not actually winning (even though that certainly is fun ). Anyway I guess I wouldn't stand a chance against you guys anyways.

But I also like to play trying to beat my own records. For that I need a good VP system.

 

[Estonianzulu]

I think VP's could be usefull to keep in. When I first started playing I wanted to try to earn the most VP's, to see the victory screen for one. I think getting rid of them in general would be bad.

Keep them, don't let them have any actual ingame effects. Those who don't want them can ignore them, those who do, get to have them.

 

[joriandrake]

Trade the VP-s for reinforcements, bonuses to your nation/state/culture/kings stats, bonuses for provinces, special unique buildings/events, ect.