War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked

[grumphie]

On the flipside, the consumer is not obligated to purchase any future titles from Paradox. Paradox built its reputation on not being douchebags to the community.

but i dont think paradox wants that to happen

its not a problem on itself if something is changed, but calling this scaled warscore is ridiculous and thus shoudl be documented at the very leats as xxx is significantly reduced. the forum backlash will come anyways, wether its like this or when its changed. its the downside of a very actice community - sooner or later someone will start to get stuff ont he radar and the backlash will come back.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am actually starting to think that major gameplay changes are kept deliberately hidden from the community precisely to avoid massive forum discussions like this one.

I doubt it, they barely participate in them (unsurprisingly, with stuff like this there's no leg to stand on so it makes sense if they post in other thread types instead) and the difference it ultimately makes is limited. Especially for straight positive changes (such as QoL that doesn't compromise previous functionality) which are *also* not documented in some cases, there's little disincentive for not mentioning it. Also, you see controversial things mentioned openly and not less controversial things (truce time vs stabhit peace offer for example), so I'm not seeing evidence of deliberate hiding to duck discussion.

This is a pretty solid strategy game by any measure of "solid." It's so solid, even people who ostensibly hate the game and think the developers are incompetent liars, like TMIT, can't stop thinking and posting about it!

Until one of the advertised features functions as advertised (MP, which does not), it's hard to make a case for "solid". It's a flawed title in a game genre with limited competition, with enough fun elements to still draw one to play it. However, the purpose of this thread was to call out a certain feature that was handled spectacularly poorly, and the "herp it was in the game since release just not shown" statement when in fact the mechanic was changed enormously since release and functionally (if not technically) removed.

That the...interesting forum individuals...are attacking me for a technicality that I actually posted to cover the one area where I was mistaken (and note that I was mistaken because this change was hidden and ducked acknowledgement) as their sole defense of the OP is showing quite clearly there's no leg to stand on for them. Ignore that Wiz was also wrong and attack the person who he admitted he was wrong instead, all while missing the point!

I find it telling that even you're not touching the actual topic of the thread . I don't recall calling Wiz incompetent in this thread, although I have clearly highlighted his statement as inaccurate (and mentioned a previous one). If you prefer, it wasn't a "lie", just making a demonstrably inaccurate statement !

 

[highsis]

Not sure what TheMeInTeam has done to earn these attacks when he has just done the test for all of you and confirmed that functionally the scaling doesn't exist which none of you would have known for sure? (Wiz included unless he was purposely saying it wrong) Or is this one of those 'you are wrong because you are not dev' classic?

100 bucks on sale for 99.99 is not really considered a discount.

 

[misterbean]

I doubt it, they barely participate in them (unsurprisingly, with stuff like this there's no leg to stand on so it makes sense if they post in other thread types instead) and the difference it ultimately makes is limited. Especially for straight positive changes (such as QoL that doesn't compromise previous functionality) which are *also* not documented in some cases, there's little disincentive for not mentioning it. Also, you see controversial things mentioned openly and not less controversial things (truce time vs stabhit peace offer for example), so I'm not seeing evidence of deliberate hiding to duck discussion.



Until one of the advertised features functions as advertised (MP, which does not), it's hard to make a case for "solid". It's a flawed title in a game genre with limited competition, with enough fun elements to still draw one to play it. However, the purpose of this thread was to call out a certain feature that was handled spectacularly poorly, and the "herp it was in the game since release just not shown" statement when in fact the mechanic was changed enormously since release and functionally (if not technically) removed.

That the...interesting forum individuals...are attacking me for a technicality that I actually posted to cover the one area where I was mistaken (and note that I was mistaken because this change was hidden and ducked acknowledgement) as their sole defense of the OP is showing quite clearly there's no leg to stand on for them. Ignore that Wiz was also wrong and attack the person who he admitted he was wrong instead, all while missing the point!

I find it telling that even you're not touching the actual topic of the thread . I don't recall calling Wiz incompetent in this thread, although I have clearly highlighted his statement as inaccurate (and mentioned a previous one). If you prefer, it wasn't a "lie", just making a demonstrably inaccurate statement !

Just a thought, but have you accounted for the Admin efficiency in your total cost? The game I just finished (the French AAR in my sig), had me picking up provinces both in Europe and ROTW at 2% sometimes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just a thought, but have you accounted for the Admin efficiency in your total cost? The game I just finished (the French AAR in my sig), had me picking up provinces both in Europe and ROTW at 2% sometimes.

I deliberately used no CB wars at the start to iron out admin efficiency and cost-reductions based on CB/war goal. As far as we know, admin efficiency is just a straight %reduction in war score cost and overextension from provinces. Presumably, the devs trashed size scaling in part due to the introduction of admin efficiency, but since acknowledgement of this mechanic change has been limited at best (and all but non-existent prior to this thread and an unrelated dev diary for 2 patches later) it's hard to tell.

 

[Path]

Just when one thought that the arguments couldn't get any lower ;-).

Oh, I don't know. At this rate we'll be able to call a Godwin in a page or two.

 

[zodium]

Until one of the advertised features functions as advertised (MP, which does not), it's hard to make a case for "solid". It's a flawed title in a game genre with limited competition, with enough fun elements to still draw one to play it. However, the purpose of this thread was to call out a certain feature that was handled spectacularly poorly, and the "herp it was in the game since release just not shown" statement when in fact the mechanic was changed enormously since release and functionally (if not technically) removed.

That the...interesting forum individuals...are attacking me for a technicality that I actually posted to cover the one area where I was mistaken (and note that I was mistaken because this change was hidden and ducked acknowledgement) as their sole defense of the OP is showing quite clearly there's no leg to stand on for them. Ignore that Wiz was also wrong and attack the person who he admitted he was wrong instead, all while missing the point!

I find it telling that even you're not touching the actual topic of the thread . I don't recall calling Wiz incompetent in this thread, although I have clearly highlighted his statement as inaccurate (and mentioned a previous one). If you prefer, it wasn't a "lie", just making a demonstrably inaccurate statement !

The reason you're being attacked for this topic is because while the point you're making is essentially correct, most of your post seems to be addressing perceived personal slights against you in a way that is at best pedantic. This is the exact same reason that people "are ignoring that Wiz was also wrong": no one else cares enough about the bitter personal angle you're trying to shoe-horn in to even evaluate who's rightest and who's wrongest. If you had left your personal baggage at the New Thread button, people would have appreciated and focused on the information you were trying to convey instead of reacting to that, so you're just reaping what you sowed here. I hope this helps.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The reason you're being attacked for this topic is because while the point you're making is essentially correct, most of your post seems to be addressing perceived personal slights against you in a way that is at best pedantic, at worst childish. This is the exact same reason that people "are ignoring that Wiz was also wrong": no one else cares enough about the bitter personal angle you're trying to shoe-horn in to even evaluate who's rightest and who's wrongest. If you had left your personal baggage at the New Thread button, people would have appreciated and focused on the information you were trying to convey instead of reacting to that, so you're just reaping what you sowed here. I hope this helps.

Hmm, I'm using an aggressive argumentative style, but I don't recall making it as if the dev behavior is slanted at me personally. I've never seen any evidence of that at all. It's not like they PM me in person and tell me secrets that are wrong or something, posts here are seen by everyone and wrt a given topic of discussion. Even if they're answering a question on a mechanic I asked, this inaccuracy isn't a problem that affects me materially differently from others.

Indeed, this entire thread came about due to both Wiz's answer and its nature when asked by a different poster with regards to a mechanic they changed without telling anybody or admitting. That's not a slight to me, it's just a botched handling of patch changes. I don't have anything personal against PI or its staff, their job isn't easy. However, this kind of stuff really hurts and compared to some of the things they actually do well, it is easy relative to those things, so it's vexing both because of the way they handle it and because of the way these things hold back a title that has so much potential and has already gotten a number of the most difficult things to do correct.

Also, in responding to that drivel, I'm trying to force people to do a better job of attacking me than to make themselves look bad .

If you had left your personal baggage at the New Thread button

Citing previous iterations of this is not personal, it demonstrates a pattern of this issue with PI and puts pressure on addressing it. I don't have anything personal against any individual at PI, even if there are things I know they could do better (and things they already do well that I can't do at all). Venting frustration over patch and community post behavior is not the same thing as holding some personal grudge. I actually WANT them to do well. I have an interest in them doing well; as you pointed out, I'm still playing this game despite its flaws.

Accurate tracking and representation of the game mechanics is a lot easier than creating a game which has fun design to play, at least judging by the number of games that screw up one versus the other. While there are some design elements I don't agree with in EU IV, that's going to be true for everyone in most games. When it comes to stuff like the nature of the stabhit peace change, size scaling change, exile, vassal feeding changes (1.6 and 1.7 changed these also without documenting specifics), there's really no place for that and thus it annoys me a bit more. However, claiming I have some kind of personal baggage with people I don't know or some bitter personal grudge is one of the bigger reaches in the thread ^_^.

 

[Chevaresqye]

Just when one thought that the arguments couldn't get any lower ;-).

I guest this this is the lowest possible for now.

 

[highsis]

The reason you're being attacked for this topic is because while the point you're making is essentially correct, most of your post seems to be addressing perceived personal slights against you in a way that is at best pedantic. This is the exact same reason that people "are ignoring that Wiz was also wrong": no one else cares enough about the bitter personal angle you're trying to shoe-horn in to even evaluate who's rightest and who's wrongest. If you had left your personal baggage at the New Thread button, people would have appreciated and focused on the information you were trying to convey instead of reacting to that, so you're just reaping what you sowed here. I hope this helps.

You know that the same logic applies to viewers, right? Why does the 3rd party have to pick on the mention of personal slights between the OP and others instead of focusing on the helpful point he made? As long as OP is not throwing insults over the top, he is within his rights to defend and criticize as much as he had been attacked and criticized.

Don't apply a double standard to judge the OP; if there has been some disagreements and one felt he suffered slights, then he goes on to discover that he is (functionally) right and the other party is wrong, he has earned some rights to go back and address the slights without throwing insults. If anything, people who are arguing semantics are being pedant and people who didn't bother mentioning the point OP made are being childish.

 

[Niebulheim]

That the...interesting forum individuals...are attacking me for a technicality that I actually posted to cover the one area where I was mistaken

I think people are just annoyed that you're blowing up a conversation that doesn't matter in the slightest and are criticising all of the tiny flaws in your argument. It just feels like your one of those people who can't handle being wrong.

I'm sorry for the hurtful things I said.

 

[dskod1]

I wish we could all get along like we used to in middle school... I wish I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone would eat and be happy...

 

[justin6477]

I wish we could all get along like we used to in middle school... I wish I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone would eat and be happy...

I dunno man, a few days ago, some lady got mad that a teacher wouldn't serve her home-made vagina cookies to her kid's 2nd grade class. Clearly school isn't what it used to be.

 

[PeterCorless]

Back to the point at issue, and the meta-conversation...

First, it seems to me that people have (rightly) sensed how Paradox has been shutting down ways to expand more and more. "Painting the map" has indeed been an increasingly difficult prospect for a few expansions now. It's fair to critique whether you think this is a "good thing" or not, and it's fair to critique the mechanisms in play that allow, or disallow, players to play the game as they have in the past.

The fun-factor and technical details of how this is done are all fair for debate.

I'd like to avoid getting into the "mutual recrimination zone," where players and staff alike feel there's a toxic, noxious atmosphere to the debate.

It would also be good, to get back on track, if people do not like the way the war score scaling works as currently implemented, to make a specific request of how it should work.

Part of why the discussion is so passionate is because, as it stands, the way that Paradox implements these changes fundamentally requires every player to "go along" with those changes, whether they like them or not.

Thus, to my mind, it would be extremely welcome if Paradox strategically considered allowing more levers and knobs to allow players to customize the play of the game as they wish: massive sweeping WWII-type blitzkrieg wars (ex: allow your unholy Golden Horde to sweep across a fearful Europe), or more like WWI sitzkrieg (ex: gritty city-to-city fighting of 30 Years' War in the HRE)?

Different players obviously have different game equilibria which they find as ideal. Some want massive changes to the map. Others want changes to the status quo to come at a high cost.

If you liked how AE worked in the prior patch? Fine. Keep the old patch's settings. If you had ways to allow for that, many players would feel less blind-sided an alienated when changes came down the pike.

Of course, the biggest area Paradox needs to maintain decisive control over are the settings for "ironman," since these would need to be normalized across all players to prevent easy achievements through changing game setup sliders. In such a case, players just need to be prepared with accurate release notes and, possibly, a well-worded explanatory example.

Does this seem rational to the minds of others (that is, if anyone is still reading this thread)?

 

[Obik]

You are right. Ironman should be a standard - they way devs want us to play, but for those who prefere different playstyles there should be more options (AE, truce time, colonisation speed, MP distribution)

 

[TheChronoMaster]

You are right. Ironman should be a standard - they way devs want us to play, but for those who prefere different playstyles there should be more options (AE, truce time, colonisation speed, MP distribution)

Aren't at least some of those already moddable, either in defines or other files? But I agree.

 

[Squirrelloid]

You are right. Ironman should be a standard - they way devs want us to play, but for those who prefere different playstyles there should be more options (AE, truce time, colonisation speed, MP distribution)

At the same time, the difficulty of particular achievements shouldn't change drastically across patches. Making world conquest harder (in single player) should not be a development goal, so achievements connote similar levels of achievement over the lifetime of the game. Rebalancing it so the difficulty is *different* is fine, but not *harder* just because.

 

[Obik]

I think having to change defines means for some people that they play not "real" EUIV. Having customization panel may "legitimize" they playstyle. Personally I don't care what changes devs make. My fun comes from the fact that I can deal with any obstacle game throw at me. 15 year truce? - I have to change my strategy but I can still achieve my goals without changing the defines

Sorry it was response to TheChronoMaster

 

[Obik]

At the same time, the difficulty of particular achievements shouldn't change drastically across patches. Making world conquest harder (in single player) should not be a development goal, so achievements connote similar levels of achievement over the lifetime of the game. Rebalancing it so the difficulty is *different* is fine, but not *harder* just because.

Personally I think that WC should be impossible, but it is only my opinion. Unfortunately DLCs brings us so many changes that achievements cannot be at the same level from previous patch.

 

[TTS]

One thing that is overlooked here is that without warscore scaling, big blobs such as france and russia are extremley tedious to break after cores expire. Repeating the same war to take 3-4 provinces every 15 years is not fun.