BiB said:
Aye. Let's have prestige instead of VPs - though not quite as it's done in Victoria, but something along those lines...
Victory Points
- Thread starter Powerslave
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Aye. Let's have prestige instead of VPs - though not quite as it's done in Victoria, but something along those lines...
Hive said:
Why not both? Prestige would be in the ingame aspect, having an actual effect on gameplay. VP would not effect gameplay, and would just be a simple way to 'win' for players.
I hate this 'winning but not really winning' concept, we should change it somehowEstonianzulu said:
jorian said:...AND...is risk bad?
Yes! Risk is too simple!
I would like Victory points to stay as they are now, just a measure of how well you are doing. No more VPs from events though that was stupid.
The game needs to have a prestige system that provides marginal modifiers to diplomatic options.
I don't want to make the game simple....that's bad...it was bad for Lord of the Realms 3 tooMarkusw7 said:
...I think if we only use VP-s as measurement ,we also could just only use prestige. jorian said:I don't want to make the game simple....that's bad...it was bad for Lord of the Realms 3 too
Not quite. A Nation that has a golden age in the 1600's would still be able to rack up quite a high vp score, but by the end of the game it would have no prestige left.
I'm easy either way as I rarely use vp's to measure anything. prestige would be a useful in-game mechanic if it's effects were not too overbearing.
Stonewall said: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.
Indeed, a Prestige system (even with one with loose ties to the game system) would be better than VP. You could still have your missions, with missions to discover areas, include alliance members, RM's etc, give a country prestige rather than VP. In this manner it is not a 'game system' gain Victory Points to win, but gain Prestige, which involves you in the country you are playing (even if the rules for VP do not change!)
In this manner I would like to see some tie-in with the game system however, for example a country with high prestige (or in the top ten or whatever) could have a malus on the relationswith the other nine in the top ten (no-one likes the top-dog effect). This would be one good use of the prestige/VP system.
Ayeshteni
Gavmania said:
But if that nation has been continously beaten ever since like that proverbial readheaded stepchild... losing land and spending most of its time either being divided up or as a vassal.. why on earth shopuld they have a high VP?
In that sense Prestige works far better..
And its not like this will affect a player, right? Players will never end up stagnating.. even if one can be severely beaten up and losing lots of land.. a comeback is always possible, and something the player will aim for!