We had 5 dev diarys already and not one mentioned fixing the current problems of the game

[I like wars and maps]

You know wich problems I´m talking about the corruption changes. The corruption changes are something the devs refuse to remove despite it probably being the worst way to design a game. Punishing the player for playing it. This is like making the player lose health for shooting their gun in a game like Doom, or to make the gap of every pit longer when the player jumps in a platformer. This decision was not done with any kind of design in mind it was only put in the game to make the game "harder" and to "encourage" not blobbing. It´s preety much agreed by everyone but the devs that the corruption changes are bad for the games helath and more importantly it´s fun-factor.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

Petition to add religion change, TC, capital movement, endgame tags to the list.

 

[Casko]

People complain about Corruption....
And I can only think that Corruption is atleast something that's not directly breaking the AI as hard as the current religion conversion issues, that desperately need a hotfix at minimum. yet no patch neither near or far.

 

[GundamMerc]

Oh joy, yet another one of these threads. *gets the popcorn*

 

[Ruian]

People complain about Corruption....
And I can only think that Corruption is atleast something that's not directly breaking the AI as hard as the current religion conversion issues, that desperately need a hotfix at minimum. yet no patch neither near or far.

Oh the AI needs to be addressed desperately, there's no question about that. Prioritizing it over fixing these stupid modifiers? I mean, I'll take either at this point. Both are very bad. The restrictions shouldn't take too long to remove since they didn't exist in the first place so I would think they could do both, right?

 

[mechanical_Critter]

of course everyone wants AI to get back on its feet. But the thing is, it's easier said than done. these things are goals that are super easy to achieve though: it's merely removing a few BS mechanics and that instantly improves the game.

I'm sure everyone understand that even if the intent was not ill, the design was horrible. Personal opinion alert:
- maybe religion conversion costing money isn't bad in itself, but tying it to autonomy kills it,
- maybe TCs are a good concept but they're completely overbuffed
- maybe you shouldn't get corruption from territory, but some other penalty (dip rep? a rework of inflation? other type of rework?) would work,
- maybe endgame tags should be added to game rules in mp, but should be present in single player
- capital movement is just a horrible confusing spaghetti hellhole though.
But even in that case, *the design has to be made properly*, and that implies removing the crippling design thinking again about it and then implementing new and hopefully well designed mechanics, instead of… this. It's very detrimental to let it sit and promote devious strats (and trying to bonk patch them out) and playing on older patches that just showcase even more that the issues of AI are… kind of recent actually.

 

[Ruian]

@mechanical_Critter in my own opinion the money cost of converting is not a huge issue. It sucks, but I can deal with it. My problem is that the AI can't deal with it. If I didn't have a OF done it would probably bother me more.

 

[Twoflower]

Maybe the devs aren't talking about it because they know that, to put it mildly, there isn't really a consensus about the corruption changes being a problem.
Some people are very clear and vocal about their intense dislike of the corruption changes, others like them, some aren't really affected by them in their playstyle at all. Putting it up for discussion in a dev diary right now would just trigger a very heated and bitter discussion and probably not result in anything productive.

When you say "it's pretty much agreed by everyone" you are being either dishonest or unperceptive regarding the opinions of a significant part of the playerbase.

Just to be clear: personally I am on the fence between thinking that the corruption changes are a good thing and not caring about them particularly because they do not much affect the way I usually play. Either way, I am firmly of the opinion that they are far from the most obvious and urgent problem in need of fixing.

The religion changes, capital movement and restrictions for endgame tags are sensible changes that made the game better and should not be rolled back in my humble opinion.
Trade companies do need some kind of rework to make them more balanced with other options.

The AI's shortcomings, on the other hand, are something that everyone will agree on as an issue in need of fixing.

 

[Ruian]

capital movement and restrictions for endgame tags are sensible changes

Can you elaborate on why the restrictions are sensible in a first and foremost single player game? In what way does it affect your game?

 

[Twoflower]

Can you elaborate on why the restrictions are sensible in a first and foremost single player game? In what way does it affect your game?

1. First and foremost single player game? I'm not sure about that. Multiplayer balance is not completely irrelevant.

2. Even for singleplayer, the game does have achievements and a leaderboard and thus a certain "competitive" element. Therefore, it does make sense for the game to have rules. It is fair and right for these rules to restrict completely outlandish and implausible behaviour like tag-switching and opportunistic capital movement.

3. I care about historical plausibility and "immersion", but also like playing the game as a strategy game. Playing it as a strategy game means that I hate knowing that certain things (like tag-switch shenanigans or moving your capital to Europe at all costs when starting in Asia) are optimal, yet having to restrict myself from doing it because playing Japan with its capital in Seville or Flanders is not an enjoyable game for me.
The game should not force me to choose between "historically plausible" and "strategically optimal". It should be about doing the optimal thing within a historically plausible, somewhat immersive set of rules.
I believe that the capital and endgame tag restrictions have a place among such a "historically plausible, somewhat immersive set of rules".

4. Regarding the capital changes, I believe the core problem is not the restriction, but that other game systems - trade companies and monodirectional trade flow - make changing the capital to Europe so beneficial. If Paradox finds a way to better balance trade companies and/or allows African and Asian countries to have trade companies in Europe, restrictions on capital movement aren't much of a burden because African and Asian countries would no longer have such an unfair disadvantage.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Maybe the devs aren't talking about it because they know that, to put it mildly, there isn't really a consensus about the corruption changes being a problem.
Some people are very clear and vocal about their intense dislike of the corruption changes, others like them, some aren't really affected by them in their playstyle at all. Putting it up for discussion in a dev diary right now would just trigger a very heated and bitter discussion and probably not result in anything productive.

When you say "it's pretty much agreed by everyone" you are being either dishonest or unperceptive regarding the opinions of a significant part of the playerbase.

Just to be clear: personally I am on the fence between thinking that the corruption changes are a good thing and not caring about them particularly because they do not much affect the way I usually play. Either way, I am firmly of the opinion that they are far from the most obvious and urgent problem in need of fixing.

The religion changes, capital movement and restrictions for endgame tags are sensible changes that made the game better and should not be rolled back in my humble opinion.
Trade companies do need some kind of rework to make them more balanced with other options.

The AI's shortcomings, on the other hand, are something that everyone will agree on as an issue in need of fixing.

I recently had a province that cost over 9 times my national budget to be converted. I was gaining 4.7 ducats per month as a very small and backwards tribe. The province had 66 local autonomy because I had to increase it to avoid fighting rebels 2,5 times bigger than my force limit. I would need to take 12 loans to be able to pay for the conversion. It used to be the case that loans were needed for war but now they are needed to try to avoid rebels 2.5x bigger than the force limit. It used to be the case that conversion was not needed due to having a tolerance path but that is no longer true for most tags due to the Humanist and policies change removing 2 tolerance of heathens from the game. It use to be the case that only the absolutism age unreasonably forced us to fight rebels due to basicaly disabling the "raise local autonomy" button but now said button is disabled for the whole game. It use to be the case that rebels and nonsense were the exception in this game but now they are the norm. How some ppl cant see this is very much reavealing of how they play, whom they play as or even if they play at all.

 

[Vulkandrache]

1. First and foremost single player game? I'm not sure about that. Multiplayer balance is not completely irrelevant.

If you are playing MP with people who are also trying to have fun then specificaly implemented rules work.
On top of that people have been modding MP games far longer and for other stuff anyways.

2. ... a leaderboard ...

This game has a leaderboard?

3. I care about historical plausibility and "immersion", but also like playing the game as a strategy game. Playing it as a strategy game means that I hate knowing that certain things (like tag-switch shenanigans or moving your capital to Europe at all costs when starting in Asia) are optimal, yet having to restrict myself from doing it because playing Japan with its capital in Seville or Flanders is not an enjoyable game for me.
The game should not force me to choose between "historically plausible" and "strategically optimal". It should be about doing the optimal thing within a historically plausible, somewhat immersive set of rules.
I believe that the capital and endgame tag restrictions have a place among such a "historically plausible, somewhat immersive set of rules".

If you are always thinking about which move would be better than what you are doing right now then maybe you arent actually having fun?
I set myself a set of rules or a goal and then play to the best of my ability within that.

The difference between your view and mine is that my anti-endgame-tags view is giving you a choice about how historically accurate to play.
You pro-endgame-tags view forces me to not play the game anymore because stupid shit was enjoyable for me.

The change adds nothing for some players and is actively detrimental to others. I call that a clear net negativ.

4. Regarding the capital changes, I believe the core problem is not the restriction, but that other game systems - trade companies and monodirectional trade flow - make changing the capital to Europe so beneficial. If Paradox finds a way to better balance trade companies and/or allows African and Asian countries to have trade companies in Europe, restrictions on capital movement aren't much of a burden because African and Asian countries would no longer have such an unfair disadvantage.

TC land and Capital movement to europe have become nessecary because TC land was buffed mutiple times,
either directly (investments, change from 75 to 0% LA) or indirectly ( being exempt from territory corruption) over the last ~2years.
Becaues somehow Paradox didnt get the Memo that TC land had already been the go-to target of conquest for ages and they thought people needed even more incentive to go for it.
That and they needed some incentive for selling Dharma.

The Capital move restriction is then a band-aid fix for a problem created by Paradox at the expense of the players enjoyment.
A rush-job combining an unwillingness to admit mistakes and a strange commitment to ignoring feedback and not wanting or not being allowed to invest time into making
older stuff work properly.
Its in the same ballpark the the "crahs the game to reset gamestate" bug thats been put in deliberatly 3 years ago.

 

[Twoflower]

I recently had a province that cost over 9 times my national budget to be converted. I was gaining 4.7 ducats per month as a very small and backwards tribe. The province had 66 local autonomy because I had to increase it to avoid fighting rebels 2,5 times bigger than my force limit. I would need to take 12 loans to be able to pay for the conversion. It used to be the case that loans were needed for war but now they are needed to try to avoid rebels 2.5x bigger than the force limit. It used to be the case that conversion was not needed due to having a tolerance path but that is no longer true for most tags due to the Humanist and policies change removing 2 tolerance of heathens from the game. It use to be the case that only the absolutism age unreasonably forced us to fight rebels due to basicaly disabling the "raise local autonomy" button but now said button is disabled for the whole game. It use to be the case that rebels and nonsense were the exception in this game but now they are the norm. How some ppl cant see this is very much reavealing of how they play, whom they play as or even if they play at all.

I really don't get why you need to be so condescending.

The thing is: I do not think that the game has to be easy as a small and backwards tribe in Africa with Hindu religion, and fringe cases are bad examples (to quote a legal adage: hard cases make bad law).
Those 43 ducats per month are a lot. They are not the norm. They mean that for the time being you cannot convert this province and have to deal with that province being heathen for a while. You'll either have to deal with that (which an undisputed master of the game without a shadow of doubt can) or you (or let us say a lesser player like me) shouldn't have conquered it in the first place.

Perhaps those 43 ducats/month are a fair consequence of the game rules, perhaps they are a case where the balancing is a little off. Notwithstanding that, the general idea of making conversion costlier is a very good one, because it used to be way too smooth and easy. There are several historical cases of even big and powerful countries attempting to convert territories and failing (Spain in the Netherlands, England/Great Britain in Ireland, to name the two most obvious examples).

The basic difference between us probably this: I am completely ok with the game making certain conquests impossible or massively disadvantageous, and I am ok with the game making certain starts very hard or even untenable, and that goes especially for custom nations as in your example. You (seem to) disagree on that.
This doesn't mean that either of us is wrong or has no right to talk about the game.

 

[Vulkandrache]

I really don't get why you need to be so condescending.

The problem isnt the 43/month, not directly atleast.
The problem is that all the systems work against each other.

You get rebels for not converting.
You dont get rebels as fast by increasing LA.
But then you cant convert because its so expensive.
So you get rebels a little later anyways.
The rebels are massively huge compare to your forcelimit.
The rebel are much more powerful and numerous than the army of the country you took the land from in the first place.

Its a giant clusterfuck of systems that have no coherent reasoning behind them.
Its like each of them was designed purely to make conquest as annoying as possible instead of increasing the games difficulty or complexity
or introducing new and interesting decisions.

There are several historical cases of even big and powerful countries attempting to convert territories and failing

You want to be historical here?
Give me the option to turn a province into an empty colonizable peace of land if people arent willing to convert.
There. Gameplay and decisions making sprinkled with a tinge of morale dilemma.

 

[maxirage]

Don't bother, the current devs don't understand the game and play at the level of amateurs. If you play any country outside of Western Europe you'd quickly reach the territory cap and understand why it's a cancerous anti-fun mechanic. The facts the devs don't understand it means that either they don't play outside of Western Europe or are unable to expand at a decent pace. Remember that these are the same people who thought trade companies were underpowered.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Don't bother

If i stop hammering on this then im guaranteed to be playing on 1.25 forever.
Right now its just likely.

 

[Ruian]

I really don't get why you need to be so condescending.

The thing is: I do not think that the game has to be easy as a small and backwards tribe in Africa with Hindu religion, and fringe cases are bad examples (to quote a legal adage: hard cases make bad law).
Those 43 ducats per month are a lot. They are not the norm. They mean that for the time being you cannot convert this province and have to deal with that province being heathen for a while. You'll either have to deal with that (which an undisputed master of the game without a shadow of doubt can) or you (or let us say a lesser player like me) shouldn't have conquered it in the first place.

Perhaps those 43 ducats/month are a fair consequence of the game rules, perhaps they are a case where the balancing is a little off. Notwithstanding that, the general idea of making conversion costlier is a very good one, because it used to be way too smooth and easy. There are several historical cases of even big and powerful countries attempting to convert territories and failing (Spain in the Netherlands, England/Great Britain in Ireland, to name the two most obvious examples).

The basic difference between us probably this: I am completely ok with the game making certain conquests impossible or massively disadvantageous, and I am ok with the game making certain starts very hard or even untenable, and that goes especially for custom nations as in your example. You (seem to) disagree on that.
This doesn't mean that either of us is wrong or has no right to talk about the game.

We impose our own restrictions on ourselves. We don't need the devs to do it for us. I don't like taking loans. Florry loves to take loans. DDRJake absolutely will not take loans. Marco will avoid fighting rebels at any cost. The way to deal with that situation is simple. Reduce autonomy and then convert it. He gives up in frustration because it forces him to fight rebels. I completely understand, I don't like being forced to take loans. I have never once changed my tag more than 1 time in a single campaign, yet I think other players should be freely allowed to do so, because who does it hurt? It is fun for them and why should that bother me? I can keep my grubby little fingers off the culture conversion/form tag buttons easy enough. I can limit myself to not conquering TC land first if I want to or not moving my capital.

As it stands I'm forced to use a capital movement change exploit I've told very few people about because of that change. I'd love to shout it on a mountaintop, but then it would be fixed immediately for the sanctity of the game.

 

[Twoflower]

The problem isnt the 43/month, not directly atleast.
The problem is that all the systems work against each other.

You get rebels for not converting.
You dont get rebels as fast by increasing LA.
But then you cant convert because its so expensive.
So you get rebels a little later anyways.
The rebels are massively huge compare to your forcelimit.
The rebel are much more powerful and numerous than the army of the country you took the land from in the first place.

So your problem is that rebels are sometimes too strong? That may be a valid point.

Its a giant clusterfuck of systems that have no coherent reasoning behind them.
Its like each of them was designed purely to make conquest as annoying as possible instead of increasing the games difficulty or complexity
or introducing new and interesting decisions.

I happen to think that attaching drawbacks - such as rebels and corruption - to conquest does introduce an interesting decision: one problem with the game in my view is/was that the optimal strategy was almost always to take as much as you can (whether "as you can" usually means 100 % warscore or just below 100 % overextension can be a point of contention, but that is just a nuance). "Can I afford to take this province despite corruption, reduced religious unity/conversion costs and rebels or should I refrain from doing so?" is an interesting strategic decision.
Yes, it makes a playstyle that was almost always optimal in former iterations of the game less of a nobrainer. That doesn't have to be bad.

You want to be historical here?
Give me the option to turn a province into an empty colonizable peace of land if people arent willing to convert.
There. Gameplay and decisions making sprinkled with a tinge of morale dilemma.

That is a nice strawman argument sprinkled with a tinge of whataboutism.

 

[Ruian]

an interesting decision: one problem with the game in my view is/was that the optimal strategy was almost always to take as much as you can

That was the original argument. The failing of that argument is that the optimal strategy is now even more narrow. There is much less choice than ever before. Now you take as much as you can absolutely. Just make sure it's in trade company land.

Say you begin in SEA. Before, maybe you would conquer Tidore and Ternate for the rich spice islands and all the ducats they are hoarding. Maybe you expand North towards Ming, South towards Majapahit for a nice powerbase, West to India or towards Japan. What do you do now? Pick exploration and move capital to Australia ASAP so you can begin TCing everything as quickly as possible. With the capital movement change (excluding exploits) you don't even want to conquer any land at all until you can move your capital. Boy is that fun.

Say you start as a Horde in the middle of Asia. Do you figure you conquer down into India first or go to Europe? Without the movement change and corruption restrictions many possibilities are present. Now you go straight to Europe so you can move your capital. Then you go straight to India so you can begin paying down inevitable corruption.

 

[Twoflower]

That was the original argument. The failing of that argument is that the optimal strategy is now even more narrow. There is much less choice than ever before. Now you take as much as you can absolutely. Just make sure it's in trade company land.

Say you begin in SEA. Before, maybe you would conquer Tidore and Ternate for the rich spice islands and all the ducats they are hoarding. Maybe you expand North towards Ming, South towards Majapahit for a nice powerbase, West to India or towards Japan. What do you do now? Pick exploration and move capital to Australia ASAP so you can begin TCing everything as quickly as possible. With the capital movement change (excluding exploits) you don't even want to conquer any land at all until you can move your capital. Boy is that fun.

Say you start as a Horde in the middle of Asia. Do you figure you conquer down into India first or go to Europe? Without the movement change and corruption restrictions many possibilities are present. Now you go straight to Europe so you can move your capital. Then you go straight to India so you can begin paying down inevitable corruption.

I agree that trade companies badly need more restrictions. Two ideas:
1. Make the whole old world a TC region - i.e. allow African and Asian countries to have TCs in Europe
2. have TCs require the global trade institution - this would properly make them a thing for the second half of the game rather than a completely overpowered tool for early blobbing
Both ideas aren't thought through and probably come with drawbacks. The main point is: something should be done about TCs.

The fact that TCs currently are something of a loophole doesn't invalidate all other balance changes implemented to disincentivize blobbing.