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

[bly08]

The corruption amount goes up from number of states, not amount of development. And even that flatlines at 0.8. There is no "allowed development". Unless you're talking about rooting out corruption cost in ducats, which is based on effective development.

By allowed I mean that TCs do not count against cap. You can own 3k dev directly, own all TC regions, and add some subjects on top without incurring the penalty. It's only when you expand fast enough, more so than is needed for the majority of achievements, or end up with 1/4 of the world directly controlled that the cap comes into play.

The entire argument is about what kind of runs the penalty affects, and the answer is large scaled, fast paced conquests, and govt forms that have low state cap. Those runs are already more difficult to begin with. The penalty does not affect your average European start as Prussia to Germany or Byzantium to Roman Empire.

 

[akngn]

@Testeria
First of all, thank you. I just want to fix a small mistake from your post.

From my experience as mediocre player, corruption is somewhat fun to play for most European nations, esp. west ones. What I didn't know at the time - it is crippling game when playing low developed tags like horde or central Africa.

Starting location is not really relevant. All you have to do is expand faster than PDX approved rate to get crippled by corruption. At least you get crippled without trade company money.

This was from 1.7.1 when having Trade Companies lagged your game so hard EU4 turned into a slide show. So I did my favourite WC method. Consolidate Europe, then eat rest of the world. I could barely field half of my force limit here. Also forget about buildings, there is no money for that. I could spend half of the effort, ate India and SEA and swim in ducats.

Here my Provence > Jerusalem game from current patch. Everything goes fine right? Russia is in PU, Castile is getting diplo-annexed. The truth is I am in debt spiral. I cannot field full backline artillery. I am not fielding my full force limit. But what pushed my into massive debt is converting high dev germany provinces. I send 6 missionary to Germany and suddenly my balance is -200 ducats. Of course, if I had TC land this would be a non issue.

 

[Twoflower]

For both of these examples, I am fully convinced that it is a good thing that corruption cripples your country.
One of the things that I would personally very much like to see in a Europa Universalis game is for world conquest to be as infeasible and disadvantageous as it should be. Not because i want to spoil anybody's fun or playstyle. But because EU4 is a strategy game that is about playing optimally. The game is less fun to me if the optimal playstyle is to blob as hard as you can.
To be a little clearer what I mean: my first Golden Century game was as Castile-Spain. Not because this is particularly challenging, but because I wanted to try out the new features and complete the new Spanish missions. I managed to do that without much effort and long before 1819 (I think it was 1710). At that point, I absolutely dominated the world, had a treasury well above 50k and the last 50 years were basically just waiting for imperial authority to increase and adding some provinces to the HRE in order to farm imperial authority (because the last mission was the one that required being Holy Roman Empire and getting to Erbkaisertum).
How is this relevant:
1. I would have actuallly wanted to be hit hard by corruption, inflation and rebels in that game. My conquests were within the range of what I personally consider "historically plausible", but still an empire that large should have massive internal problems. The game would actually have been more fun for me if those massive conquests had been punished. I do not consider corruption an "anti-fun" mechanism, I consider it a way to attach plausible drawbacks to conquest and a large empire.
2. In the final stage, I was completely aware that the "best" way to complete the last mission would be to just gobble up as much territory bordering the HRE (i.e. the Balkans, Poland, Denmark, France) as I can, core it and add it to the HRE. The same would be true in any other game where your goal is to push through imperial reforms. I didn't do that because I consider it silly and immersion-breaking. Territory corruption is one way to make this strategy, which shouldn't be a functional one, less attractive. It is perhaps somewhat clumsy, it perhaps doesn't work perfectly, but it is a step in the right direction.

EDIT: just as an addendum: I believe that the game should be fun and challenging even for a skilled player when playing a historical major. These are the countries that most of the advertising for the game is about and that have the most content, after all.

 

[Testeria]

For both of these examples, I am fully convinced that it is a good thing that corruption cripples your country.
(...)
EDIT: just as an addendum: I believe that the game should be fun and challenging even for a skilled player when playing a historical major. These are the countries that most of the advertising for the game is about and that have the most content, after all.

Your example shows that You missed the point:
The problem is not that corruption crippled my Kilva empire. The problem is that after corruption changes there is actually nothing TO DO in the game but wait when You play Kilva empire.

This problem do not really hit Europe countries because they are rich and there is always plenty to do in Europe. You can play trade game, convert countries, play marriage game, colonize, dismantle HRE, etc. Things look bleak when You play tags like Kilva, Aztecs or horde and probably when You do some speedy WC.

EDIT:

This is what I actually ASKED devs many times in different threads:
<< How am I supposed to play tags like Kilva or Aztec? They are marked as "interesting" tags so they are designed for inexperienced players - how were they designed to play after corruption changes? Where they supposed to play as at all? Anyone from the dev team tested them? >>

Because for me it looks like they don't.

 

[Twoflower]

Your example shows that You missed the point:
The problem is not that corruption crippled my Kilva empire. The problem is that after corruption changes there is actually nothing TO DO in the game but wait when You play Kilva empire.

Your problem, then, is not corruption but lack of internal, diplomatic and internal mechanics
I can agree with that point of view to a certain extent, however in the end of the day, I do find the game enjoyable while not always being involved in wars of conquest and I do not think it is that awful to spend prolonged periods at peace.

This problem do not really hit Europe countries because they are rich and there is always plenty to do in Europe. You can play trade game, convert countries, play marriage game, colonize, dismantle HRE, etc. Things look bleak when You play tags like Kilva, Aztecs or horde and probably when You do some speedy WC.

Probably true for ROTW countries.
The WC experience, in my personal, biased and very humble opinion, should not be relevant. WC is something that should be actively prevented, not encouraged. And I would also be very happy to see all WC achievements go the way of the dodo (which I understand is not realistic for EU4). WC achievements and WC streams are something that, again in my personal opinion, have been bad for the game and to a certain extent for this forum because they have created an expectation from the game which I intensely disagree with.

EDIT:

This is what I actually ASKED devs many times in different threads:
<< How am I supposed to play tags like Kilva or Aztec? They are marked as "interesting" tags so they are designed for inexperienced players - how were they designed to play after corruption changes? Where they supposed to play as at all? Anyone from the dev team tested them? >>

Because for me it looks like they don't.

Do not conquer everything and corruption will not cripple you? I have played ROTW countries after the corruption changes, and wonder of wonders, I didn't think if was that awful an experience. Your mileage may of course vary.
And btw, I'm not sure why "interesting" should mean designed for inexperienced players. Was it advertised as such at some point?

 

[Vulkandrache]

I would have actuallly wanted to be hit hard by corruption

Im not sure wether there is a misconception going around or not but:
There wouldnt be any problem with a mechanic which pushes back as the players gets bigger. As long as its interesting.
Its not and there have been many suggestions over the years for mechanics which would be superior in design.

Anyting from money to TCs to mechanics unuseable by the Ai have made rapid expansion easier patch by patch.
As long as things are kept within approved parameters you can conquer the wold by bashing the keyboard with your head.

But instead of going: "Well, guess we went a bit too far. TC land is now finaly the be-all-end-all for blobbing.
Lets do a rebalance to make sure other strategies are atleast competitive."
They went ahead and slaped corruption on as yet another mechanics layer uppon layer.
First with RU and Unbalanced tech now just from being too big.
Even if it was doing its job properly it does so in what may be the most boring destructive way for the game.

The same would be true in any other game where your goal is to push through imperial reforms. I didn't do that because I consider it silly and immersion-breaking.

The HRE and its Reforms are in dire need of a rework, i just fear that such a rework would end up with the HRE basically being patched out of the game.

The reward from the reforms doenst justify the toddler hearding that one must undertake to get good amounts of IA if you dont want to just add land and call it a day.
This is futher aplified by such genius design decisions as the Emperor not having any option other than to wait,
should the Leagues fire and the Protestant side isnt strongt enough to dare declare.

and rebels in that game.

Rebels might well be the most ahistorical part of this entire game.
In many areas of the world a rebel army would be the equivalent of every Man, Woman, Old Person, Child and Pet (domestic and otherwise) taking up arms at the same time and turning into trained soldier overnight with one of the usually morphing into a demigod tier general.
Where were those people last year when their homeland was occupied by foreign soldiers?

Why does Separatism reset back to 30 years every time a province changes hands? One would thing the people eventually get tired of being killed.
They shouldnt care whos getting their taxes in the end.
Why does the LA dickery of the last owner carry over to the next one? (Why cant i raise LA in new land if the last person did it before?)

It is perhaps somewhat clumsy, it perhaps doesn't work perfectly, but it is a step in the right direction.

Even if thats the way of thinking one employs one has to wonder at what point in the distant future do we get a system thats not just a hack job.
The last big one(the game crashing to restorn gamestate) is 3 and a half years running by now.
One would assume such a MaCGuyver job is meant a short term solution to be fixed properly asap.

I believe that the game should be fun and challenging even for a skilled player when playing a historical major.

Asumming challenging means what i think it means it would make the game unplayable for the wast majority of players.
Especially if we apply this to MAJOR countries.
If one needed actual skill to play the Ottomans and not simply die; good god "I wanna be the Guy" and Mario RomHacks would have nothing on this game.

 

[Testeria]

Even if thats the way of thinking one employs one has to wonder at what point in the distant future do we get a system thats not just a hack job.

On 25th of April - at least that is what I hope for

 

[Testeria]

Your problem, then, is not corruption but lack of internal, diplomatic and internal mechanics
I can agree with that point of view to a certain extent, however in the end of the day, I do find the game enjoyable while not always being involved in wars of conquest and I do not think it is that awful to spend prolonged periods at peace.

And what You do then? Just wait 50 years to pass and close all popup windows on speed 5? Because that what I was doing as Kilva...

The WC experience, in my personal, biased and very humble opinion, should not be relevant.

Why? It was legitimate way to play the game for a long time now, it was attractive to advanced players and for the Youtube crowd.
I second You that WC shouldn't be possible in EU4 - but it is long time too late for that kind of changes now.

Do not conquer everything and corruption will not cripple you?

Waiting is not a valid way to play this game, in fact - any real game.

I have played ROTW countries after the corruption changes, and wonder of wonders, I didn't think if was that awful an experience. Your mileage may of course vary.

ROTW is not always a problem. India for example is rich enough to mitigate corruption. Problem is when all You can state are 3 dev provinces.

And btw, I'm not sure why "interesting" should mean designed for inexperienced players. Was it advertised as such at some point?

"Interesting" tags are default choices presented to you when you start the application - if they are not for beginners then for whom?

 

[dynalon]

Just to support @akngn 's point, a small example of just how much better expansion into TC land is:

My current game as Norway (anno 1672). I'm at 129 territories with my state limit being 51; current development is just shy of 5k. Thanks to blobbing into India (and to a lesser extent Africa and Indonesia), I'm gaining zero point one corruption per year because of too many territories. At 99.9% Overextension, I'm paying 86.8 ducats/month for corruption, while my gross income is ~625 ducats/month. I'm fielding 450 regiments (FL is 509) with admittedly fewer mercs than I should have, and my balance is still at +115 ducats/month while scraping the OE cap.

It's not at all my intention to brag - I don't consider myself an exceptional player and I know that a better player would be able to reach a significantly stronger economic base by this point in the game. I haven't monopolized Lübeck yet, Portugal still controls the majority of the Cape and Spain controls about 50% of the Zanzibar node, so my trade income is hardly optimized. I've wasted a bunch of colonist time by setting up several colonial nations and tariffs still only give me a staggering 21.5 ducats/month. I still have built hardly any TC buildings.
My point is, I solved the corruption issue with one decision: Conquer India, which isn't exactly a 200 IQ play to make. The consequence for me is that I regularly revert to 1.25, whenever I want to have other expansion paths that don't cripple my economy.

Your problem, then, is not corruption but lack of internal, diplomatic and internal mechanics
I can agree with that point of view to a certain extent, however in the end of the day, I do find the game enjoyable while not always being involved in wars of conquest and I do not think it is that awful to spend prolonged periods at peace.

That is a problem, yes. EU4 was never designed (at least not successfully) to have internal mechanics that are continuously engaging. Estates, for example, are only relevant every 20 years to get their mana - otherwise, you only really have to interact with them when some random event modifies their loyalty and/or influence or if you want newly aquired land to be more productive. And the latter even requires prior land aquisition, so there's that.

Anyway, EU4 simply doesn't have that much content to offer outside of warfare compared to other GS games, or to 4X games such as the Civ series and Stellaris where "empire-building" is a much more significant part of the game. And a lot of the latest decisions sabotage that "warfare" aspect, which in my view turns "risk with more buttons" into "nothing, but with buttons". If the devs really want to make fast and large conquest less viable, they really, really should've thought about alternative game content before implementing those changes.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

How is this relevant:
1. I would have actuallly wanted to be hit hard by corruption, inflation and rebels in that game. My conquests were within the range of what I personally consider "historically plausible", but still an empire that large should have massive internal problems. The game would actually have been more fun for me if those massive conquests had been punished. I do not consider corruption an "anti-fun" mechanism, I consider it a way to attach plausible drawbacks to conquest and a large empire.

The thing is, the main part of the argument revolves around the fact that mechanic is very imbalanced in favour of european countries. Saying you had no trouble as an European country is just a needless confirmation. I can also input my own confirmation in my latest run (3rd way Mzab -> Algiers -> Tunis -> Andalusia)

First screenshot I am very slowly conquering Africa. All this land is super rich, full of Dyes, Ivory, Silk… all the gold mine are statified and I'm at my state cap. Yet this is the first time in the game where I simply break even, thanks to having a smallish army without mercs (see right slider). Corruption from territories is about -0.5/year. I seriously considered to go bankrupt in this game, but I decided to go against it (quite a committal decision tbh).



50 years later almost all the massive debt is paid thanks to moving the capital down the strait and being allowed to use TC. Notice how army is much larger, but it could be way larger actually, manpower/army professionalism holding me back. Ik it was suboptimal, but I wanted to test keeping army professionalism high because that's what people do in MP and I think it's interesting. I still have a fair chunk of mercs, ~50% of my inf, and I'm 50% inf 50% cannons because micro is irrelevant at this point. I'm also spamming colonies, money is a non-issue.



It's like everyone else, so long as you can arrange moving your capital to europe and acquire some TC land you're fine, else you're in deep struggle. And my rate of expansion wasn't even big to begin with, I also did silly things like colonising.

So, I can quote on the top of my head at least 3 different ideas that have been posted in this thread that would make the game harder for everyone but also engaging, more logical and therefore more entertaining. And that's only in this thread, and without mentioning the elephant in the room, "improved AI". Why is it that territory corruption, an illogical mechanic that has zero grounds appeals to you rather than the rest? I don't get it.

Or you could just have high stability...

Each level of positive stability gives you -0.02 yearly corruption. So if you're at a mere +40stab you're not affected. We might be onto something

 

[Twoflower]

So, I can quote on the top of my head at least 3 different ideas that have been posted in this thread that would make the game harder for everyone but also engaging, more logical and therefore more entertaining. And that's only in this thread, and without mentioning the elephant in the room, "improved AI". Why is it that territory corruption, an illogical mechanic that has zero grounds appeals to you rather than the rest? I don't get it.

Territory corruption does not appeal to me particularly, and I believe I didn't say so in this thread. My point regarding the corruption things in a nutshell is:

1. It is ok for the game to have rules, even if these rules restrict the player.

2. Contrary to what the OP claimed, territory corruption is not something that a consensus of all players thinks is bad, and it certainly isn't the most urgent problem with the game. And I resent the notion brought up in this (and similar other) threads that only a part of the player base has a right to an opinion. Nota bene: this also applies in the other direction, i.e. the significant part of the player base that likes WC and "blobby" play and therefore has a different taste and opinion from mine of course has a valid point as well. The sad thing is that it seems hard to find a middle ground - perhaps game rules as in CK2 might be a great idea after all.

 

[maxirage]

2. Contrary to what the OP claimed, territory corruption is not something that a consensus of all players thinks is bad, and it certainly isn't the most urgent problem with the game.

Strongly disagree. Me and several other competent players see this as the worst change Paradox has ever made to the game. This is not on the same level as unbalanced tech or even the conversation change, it's a beast and most certainly is the most urgent problem for a chunk of the playerbase. The fact we're still getting regular threads about it reflects this.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

Of course, nobody knows everything, so only a part of the playerbase would know about this and have an enlightened opinion.

And I resent the notion brought up in this (and similar other) threads that only a part of the player base has a right to an opinion.

What if there is not a just a consensus but also an overwhelming consensus to remove corruption amongst these players, would that make a difference to you? It's been largely explained
- why this mechanic is destructive to the game
- that its only proponents have no experience in the gameplay style this was designed to address
- replacements have been proposed over an over.

I don't know that what you say is true in the first place, that there would be a consensus for a nerf in general looks very odd to me and frankly I don't believe it. But if admittedly that were to be the case, all videogames that are under continued development are driven by the top quantile of their players first and foremost. So even if you disagree with the arguments (apparently you do agree! and I'm pretty happy since the argumentation in the other side looks scarce), you have to value the opinions that have been given (in particular) in this thread.

No matter how I look at this I'm dubious that a call to majority would help favour good game design :/

 

[Dasmani]

1. It is ok for the game to have rules, even if these rules restrict the player.

This is true, and some rules that restrict the players are good rules, but some rules that restrict the players are bad rules. Imagine if idea groups were assigned by lottery and you had to fully complete them before taking tech. Nice Switzerlake run you got going there, have Maritime, Naval, Exploration, and Expansion.

Corruption isn't quite that bad, but it isn't a good rule.

Corruption for territories is a bad rule because it doesn't do what it was designed to do. It does not meaningfully restrict conquest. All it does is elevate one particular WC strategy so far ahead of other WC strategies that what was once an interesting, if tedious, accomplishment is now a mindless checklist. Consolidate local power base, check. Charter company from Indian minor, check. Own the entirety of the Asian coastline, check. Tidy up the borders, aaaaand WC complete.

Corruption for territories only comes up during WC runs, and because of the checklist above it's entirely a non-issue except that Asian countries have an extra step to colonize Lae or migrate to Europe first.

It basically comes down to whether the restriction adds choices or removes them. AE is a good example because it presents a choice of how to deal with it. You can spread your conquests out slowly over several regions so that the penalty decays, or you can bash your way through a region and simply annex every tag that has an outraged modifier of you before they have a chance to form a coalition, or you can use coalition wars to your advantage by resetting truce timers.

Corruption doesn't add choices, it only removes them. That makes it a bad rule.

With the introduction of Absolutism and monarch point pinatas, world conquests have become significantly easier. I agree with you that there needs to be some kind of mechanic to make a world conquest more difficult, but introducing tedium and forced downtime for their own sake is not a mechanic. I want to make it clear that the WC crowd isn't arguing that there shouldn't be some kind of extra barrier to preserve the strategic challenges into the final stages of the game. The argument presented here is that the corruption change is the worst way to do such a thing, as it doesn't present any sort of realist barrier but merely introduces tedium to a mindlessly streamlined strategy.

 

[Testeria]

territory corruption is not something that a consensus of all players thinks is bad, and it certainly isn't the most urgent problem with the game

It actually made me to roll back (to 1.25) for the first time in all the years playing EU4. Considering there is Rome just around the corner and CK2 do most of the things better - it could mean I won't play EU4 at all... so from my perspective this IS the most urgent problem to solve.

 

[GundamMerc]

Territory corruption does not appeal to me particularly, and I believe I didn't say so in this thread. My point regarding the corruption things in a nutshell is:

1. It is ok for the game to have rules, even if these rules restrict the player.

2. Contrary to what the OP claimed, territory corruption is not something that a consensus of all players thinks is bad, and it certainly isn't the most urgent problem with the game. And I resent the notion brought up in this (and similar other) threads that only a part of the player base has a right to an opinion. Nota bene: this also applies in the other direction, i.e. the significant part of the player base that likes WC and "blobby" play and therefore has a different taste and opinion from mine of course has a valid point as well. The sad thing is that it seems hard to find a middle ground - perhaps game rules as in CK2 might be a great idea after all.

Completely agreed with. If something only come up as an issue during a WC run, which a vast majority of players do not do, it inherently cannot be the most urgent or dire problem with the game. Things like improving the AI so that it is optimized around current mechanics and infinite mercs (which are a problem long before you even try WC) are far more urgent and systematic issues.

 

[maxirage]

Territory corruption is NOT exclusive to WC. Try playing Poland while staying in your region and consolidating power. You'll reach the territory cap after forming the Commonwealth and have nothing left to do but sit on your hands. It's absolutely crippling and the only way you'd defend it is if you never tried it.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Things like improving the AI so that it is optimized around current mechanics and infinite mercs (which are a problem long before you even try WC) are far more urgent and systematic issues.

Those things take skill, ideas, time and money.
CorrTer can be removed with a click, conversions turned back to 1.25 with a copy/paste.

The patching of exotic 5people-use-it exploits, the make-it-tedious hampering of rapid expansion play and
introduction such as pirates took all the time that could be used to come up with actual ideas.

This is nothing new, the polish has been lagging behind the updates for a long time.
Its just that starting with Dharma enough bullshit was pulled for former supporters to turn into vivid critics.

 

[Dasmani]

Things like improving the AI so that it is optimized around current mechanics and infinite mercs (which are a problem long before you even try WC) are far more urgent and systematic issues.

The AI problem is an engineering problem, while the infinite mercenaries are merely a design problem.

The territorial corruption issue is, on the other hand, an issue with design philosophy.

That is what makes it such a pressing issue.

 

[Canute VII]

For both of these examples, I am fully convinced that it is a good thing that corruption cripples your country.
One of the things that I would personally very much like to see in a Europa Universalis game is for world conquest to be as infeasible and disadvantageous as it should be. Not because i want to spoil anybody's fun or playstyle. But because EU4 is a strategy game that is about playing optimally. The game is less fun to me if the optimal playstyle is to blob as hard as you can.
To be a little clearer what I mean: my first Golden Century game was as Castile-Spain. Not because this is particularly challenging, but because I wanted to try out the new features and complete the new Spanish missions. I managed to do that without much effort and long before 1819 (I think it was 1710). At that point, I absolutely dominated the world, had a treasury well above 50k and the last 50 years were basically just waiting for imperial authority to increase and adding some provinces to the HRE in order to farm imperial authority (because the last mission was the one that required being Holy Roman Empire and getting to Erbkaisertum).
How is this relevant:
1. I would have actuallly wanted to be hit hard by corruption, inflation and rebels in that game. My conquests were within the range of what I personally consider "historically plausible", but still an empire that large should have massive internal problems. The game would actually have been more fun for me if those massive conquests had been punished. I do not consider corruption an "anti-fun" mechanism, I consider it a way to attach plausible drawbacks to conquest and a large empire.
2. In the final stage, I was completely aware that the "best" way to complete the last mission would be to just gobble up as much territory bordering the HRE (i.e. the Balkans, Poland, Denmark, France) as I can, core it and add it to the HRE. The same would be true in any other game where your goal is to push through imperial reforms. I didn't do that because I consider it silly and immersion-breaking. Territory corruption is one way to make this strategy, which shouldn't be a functional one, less attractive. It is perhaps somewhat clumsy, it perhaps doesn't work perfectly, but it is a step in the right direction.

EDIT: just as an addendum: I believe that the game should be fun and challenging even for a skilled player when playing a historical major. These are the countries that most of the advertising for the game is about and that have the most content, after all.

Personally, I was a bit unhappy about territory corruption, because when it was introduced they also raised the base number of states by +5. This meant that to this very day I have not once experienced territory corruption. Not in my "This is Persia" game, not in my Orissa expanding into Indonesia and forming Bharat game, not even when starting as Ming... I mean, I hoped it would make expanding more interesting/challenging, but in fact doesn't even seem to touch me in the way I play the game... Seems it really only applies when doing things not seen in history before.