What is badwrongfun? An explaination

[Kepheren]

Who wants to play a competitive game with someone who is using "cheats and mods"?

This argument has gone way beyond the point where it is of much interest to me. Now it is just nitpicking and people expressing their opinions. I did want to make a comment though regarding Edmon's quote above. Did I at any point say I was playing with anyone else? No, I did not because all of my game play with Paradox games is solo.....mostly because of an irregular schedule but also because I don't know that many people interested in this genre that I would take the time to game with.

It seems you assume that others are doing multiplayer. Hell, I don't even know if you can use cheat codes in that sort of game. I use them in private scenarios to set up a situation that amuses me in the moment. Nothing more.

And that is why I'm kind of tired of this debate. Everyone has their opinion and everyone plays the games they want to play. Berating any of those opinions or calling them the wrong sort of fun because gamers don't really understand what fun is? That just seems kind of weak.

 

[Sian]

Nah, I actually spent 10 years (on and off naturally) building a massive city scape in Sim City 4 with three friends. But that game has absolutely no competitive aspect, other than I suppose packing more people into tiles.

And what, pray tell, do that have to do with my quary?

 

[Imgran]

... you must utterly hate those playing Roguelikes without being forced to do so by gunpoint, in which case its torture...

Fact is, that not all of those that play games play for the same reasons (your definition of fun), or even with the same goals in mind... i know its arcane but some people actually play for the challenge

Hold on a sec. There's a difference between roguelikes and what this guy's talking about. With roguelikes, the rules of the game are tough, but ultimately consistent. Playing the Binding of Isaac, or FTL, or Nuclear Throne, you know what it takes to win, and sometimes the game doesn't give you what you need to get to the next level through RNG, or through risks you didn't take, or you lose them through risks you didn't take but should have -- either way, you know the rules, you know the game, you know why what you did did not work. This is what allows you to develop new strategies and better approaches to the game. FTL and TBoI in particular have done a great job of updating the game with new features, without breaking the meta very much, handing the players more tools within the rules rather than breaking balance outright.

What we're risking in Europa Universalis IV with this constant re-patching, nerfing this exploit, eliminating that one, is a constantly fluid RULESET. This is not by any means, in any concievable way shape or form, a good thing. Changing on field conditions is one thing, it forces both new strategies and new adaptations to the old strategies, and that's fine. completely turning the rules on their heads to get rid of edge case gameplay is quite another, and a great deal more serious -- and more prone to catastrophic backfire than those who are trying to insist on complete historical accuracy in a video game seem to think it is..

I don't mind needing to rethink the game every now and again, it's why you don't play the same nation twice, keeps the game fresh, but I'd like to know that I'm sure what will happen when I push a given button, and some of Paradox's rules changes take that privilege away from me which is just not OK.

And the problem with these constant changes to the ruleset, is that eventually, you're going to make bad ones, even if you're a very good development team (and PDS is a very, very, very good development team). Because it's not just the players. Sometimes the dev team also misses the boat on exactly where the fun is in their own games, or are out of touch with the meta in ways that any new adjustment to the ruleset breaks to the game's detriment. And there have been some very bad changes to EUIV, I'm sure every player, even the most ardent Paradox apologists has a few changes that EUIV has made over the year that are less "this is a great idea!" and more "Well, EUIV is still a good game, better grin and bear it." And when your solution to this is to change more stuff without, usually, even refining what's already there to make it more acceptable, you're asking for trouble.

So I can definitely see where Eamon is coming from when he says that the nerf hammer is being wielded a little too aggressivley against certain metas. Quite frankly, no one can design a game watertight enough to avoid explot metas, and if you try too hard to be the first, then you've lost the vision of the fun, yes including the badwrongfun, that the game has to offer, and this is never a good thing for your game. Stop being police and go back to being devs guys, you'll have a better game as a result I assure you.

<---- relevant.

 

[BrokenSky]

I'll bite and answer as if you are genuinely curious.

People are really bad, in the general case, at a lot of things and understanding why they are having fun is one of them.

This I can confirm. I once noticed that I liked colonizing, so I set up a game in the mode with players only (custom nation 4x mode) as a custom nation in an empty world with ideas and traditions which gave me more colonizing power (colonists + colony growth etc). I actually got as far as setting down the first two colonies before I realized I'd removed the capacity for interaction and hence the basis of what was actually fun.

 

[Beagá]

I think current colonization sucks. I prefer the launch map with less but bigger provinces. Decisions were tougher and thus, meant more. And nothing is worse than feeling decisions don´t matter much.

 

[net.split]

Hold on a sec. There's a difference between roguelikes and what this guy's talking about. With roguelikes, the rules of the game are tough, but ultimately consistent. Playing the Binding of Isaac, or FTL, or Nuclear Throne, you know what it takes to win, and sometimes the game doesn't give you what you need to get to the next level through RNG, or through risks you didn't take, or you lose them through risks you didn't take but should have -- either way, you know the rules, you know the game, you know why what you did did not work. This is what allows you to develop new strategies and better approaches to the game. FTL and TBoI in particular have done a great job of updating the game with new features, without breaking the meta very much, handing the players more tools within the rules rather than breaking balance outright.

What we're risking in Europa Universalis IV with this constant re-patching, nerfing this exploit, eliminating that one, is a constantly fluid RULESET. This is not by any means, in any concievable way shape or form, a good thing. Changing on field conditions is one thing, it forces both new strategies and new adaptations to the old strategies, and that's fine. completely turning the rules on their heads to get rid of edge case gameplay is quite another, and a great deal more serious -- and more prone to catastrophic backfire than those who are trying to insist on complete historical accuracy in a video game seem to think it is..

I don't mind needing to rethink the game every now and again, it's why you don't play the same nation twice, keeps the game fresh, but I'd like to know that I'm sure what will happen when I push a given button, and some of Paradox's rules changes take that privilege away from me which is just not OK.

And the problem with these constant changes to the ruleset, is that eventually, you're going to make bad ones, even if you're a very good development team (and PDS is a very, very, very good development team). Because it's not just the players. Sometimes the dev team also misses the boat on exactly where the fun is in their own games, or are out of touch with the meta in ways that any new adjustment to the ruleset breaks to the game's detriment. And there have been some very bad changes to EUIV, I'm sure every player, even the most ardent Paradox apologists has a few changes that EUIV has made over the year that are less "this is a great idea!" and more "Well, EUIV is still a good game, better grin and bear it." And when your solution to this is to change more stuff without, usually, even refining what's already there to make it more acceptable, you're asking for trouble.

So I can definitely see where Eamon is coming from when he says that the nerf hammer is being wielded a little too aggressivley against certain metas. Quite frankly, no one can design a game watertight enough to avoid explot metas, and if you try too hard to be the first, then you've lost the vision of the fun, yes including the badwrongfun, that the game has to offer, and this is never a good thing for your game. Stop being police and go back to being devs guys, you'll have a better game as a result I assure you.

This is a really weird post. For example, you caution against ruleset changes because some of the changes will be bad. But this is ignoring that other changes will be good. So are you afraid that there will be more bad changes than good ones? I don't think so as you acknowledge that the team is really good. So you seem to be suggesting that it's worth skipping out on nine good changes because the tenth one is bad? Or four due to the fifth, or whatever ratio seems to fit your esteem of the team's abilities.

You also assert that having a fluid ruleset over the course of time & changes is, from all angles and in every way, bad. But you don't really back up this (very strongly-worded) assertion at all, except with the aforementioned doomsaying that some change will eventually be bad.

Overall you're just giving the impression that you fear change, in which case I'm not even sure why you moved from, say, EU3 to EU4 to begin with.

 

[Imgran]

Also relevant

 

[Imgran]

This is a really weird post. For example, you caution against ruleset changes because some of the changes will be bad. But this is ignoring that other changes will be good.

A good change and a bad change do not cancel each other out. Good features are good, bad features are bad and they all coexist in an equation that is by no means zero-sum. What you get when you combine a bunch of good and bad features is a game with bad features in. Talking against those bad features does not mean you think the game is not good.

So are you afraid that there will be more bad changes than good ones? I don't think so as you acknowledge that the team is really good. So you seem to be suggesting that it's worth skipping out on nine good changes because the tenth one is bad? Or four due to the fifth, or whatever ratio seems to fit your esteem of the team's abilities.

No, what I think is that every time you make a change you risk that change being bad. Remember, good changes don't cancel out bad changes. And that bad features have a way of not being removed, especially when you've already invested time and capital in putting them in the game and integrating them with other extant features.

I'm also, on a mostly unrelated note, concerned that there are some changes made to this game simply to sell new DLC. My personal belief is that both of the recent DLC, Common Sense and Cossacks, were completely unnecessary and changed the game in ways that added complexity without adding very much by way of depth.

You also assert that having a fluid ruleset over the course of time & changes is, from all angles and in every way, bad. But you don't really back up this (very strongly-worded) assertion at all, except with the aforementioned doomsaying that some change will eventually be bad.

And that's not a concern for you? Wholesale changes to a game that is already released and on the market is not the usual industry way of doing things. Every single change you make risks alienating current customers, and this game has been out for so many months that new customers are only trickling in. If you make a bad change and it backfires, you've gimped the game's future earnings potential significantly by removing part of the customer base. This will happen every time you make that kind of change, unless your game has a strong appeal with its customer base. Fortunately this one does, but there are limits.

Overall you're just giving the impression that you fear change, in which case I'm not even sure why you moved from, say, EU3 to EU4 to begin with.

I more or less started with EUIV. But the game I paid for is gone. I consider Paradox's DLC-rich update tactics a form of bait and switch if I'm being honest. Not that some of the changes haven't been good, but they've all been arbitrary and not what I paid for.

 

[net.split]

A good change and a bad change do not cancel each other out. Good features are good, bad features are bad and they all coexist in an equation that is by no means zero-sum. What you get when you combine a bunch of good and bad features is a game with bad features in. Talking against those bad features does not mean you think the game is not good.

I fundamentally disagree with you on this point, so I'll only respond here as it would basically carry on to the rest of your post.

I can explain with an example. I'd take a really good change -- say, a more flexible trade system that was bidirectional and had more connections to better create all types of trade empires, if it meant I had to take some lesser bad change along with it -- say, some rehashing of idea groups that was a bit less balanced or interesting than before.

The changes might be zero-sum. They probably won't be, and since the team is good, the good changes will likely far outweigh the bad ones. When they don't, the team is also usually good about fixing them, so I keep on updating.

If this changes, I'll stop updating and stop buying the DLC. This whole thing is clearly subjective, and you clearly feel the bad changes are significant enough that they outweigh the good ones. In that case wouldn't you be better served playing in a prior patch and avoiding dropping any more money on the game?

 

[BrokenSky]

I fundamentally disagree with you on this point, so I'll only respond here as it would basically carry on to the rest of your post.

I can explain with an example. I'd take a really good change -- say, a more flexible trade system that was bidirectional and had more connections to better create all types of trade empires, if it meant I had to take some lesser bad change along with it -- say, some rehashing of idea groups that was a bit less balanced or interesting than before.

The changes might be zero-sum. They probably won't be, and since the team is good, the good changes will likely far outweigh the bad ones. When they don't, the team is also usually good about fixing them, so I keep on updating.

If this changes, I'll stop updating and stop buying the DLC. This whole thing is clearly subjective, and you clearly feel the bad changes are significant enough that they outweigh the good ones. In that case wouldn't you be better served playing in a prior patch and avoiding dropping any more money on the game?

It's definitely not zero sum. If anything it's probably closer to a ratio. One bad feature in an otherwise perfect game is not often worth adding one more good feature because it taints everything. On the other hand one good feature won't often save it. I'm not really sure what the actual system is, but zero sum it isn't.

 

[net.split]

It's definitely not zero sum. If anything it's probably closer to a ratio. One bad feature in an otherwise perfect game is not often worth adding one more good feature because it taints everything. On the other hand one good feature won't often save it. I'm not really sure what the actual system is, but zero sum it isn't.

While I can accept this statement as-written, I don't find it especially useful because I've never played a perfect game.

There is a famous game designer quote -- "A game is never finished. It is simply released." I'm not sure I can accept that the state of a game upon release is at all better than the same game developed for another 9 months by mostly the same development team to continue realizing the game's vision and correcting the elements that didn't pan out as hoped.

My favorite game ever, the closest to perfect game I can recall playing, is The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. Even that game could have benefited from additional development time and more improvements. Some of the bosses were a little too similar to others and could have used more unique mechanics and play. The difficulty curve wasn't completely smooth. Changing your equipped item was more of a hassle than it probably had to be, and some items were too limited in utility.

Off-hand I'm actually having trouble thinking of an example of a game that was over-developed to the point of being worse than the original, especially when considering the classics. Master of Magic? Greatly improved with a huge patch that revamped AI and made sweeping balance changes. The average Final Fantasy? Most of these were released first in Japan, with the West later getting better versions that added more features. Every single one of these were better than the original, and the one we missed (FF12's enhanced version actually didn't make it to the West) has suffered in reception and memory because of it.

There are occasional stumbles in patches for Paradox GSGs, but overall I put as many hours into these as I do because they keep improving them, making them better, more fun and interesting to play. If they were to stop doing this, as some seem to want, I'd probably move on and play something else instead.

 

[Xara]

The actual 'system' is weighted based on your perception of everything involved.

One 'bad' feature might be something you consider so ludicrously over the top that you stop playing over it while other people don't even care, or are even for it. I was utterly incensed about the 50% idea group limitation and I'm still pissed about it tbh. That was enough for me to stop playing for 4-5 months to take a break from things.

There are a lot of pretty good changes that come with every patch, they're often just overshadowed by the few bad ones we don't like. We get vocal about it because we care. For all I might complain about various things, I've never played a game other than an MMO more than I have EU4.

However I don't think the recent DLCs have been going down a good path. The purported "features" of Cossacks seem more like "hassle" to me.

 

[Imgran]

When I paid for EUIV I did it because I thought the game at the time was very, very good. That affects my feelings about whether, when and how the game should be changed, I'll be the first to admit that. And I'll be the first to admit that I like some of what they've done to improve it. But they've done a lot to move the game sideways, and a little to move it backward and I'm not really thrilled with the whole thing.

If I'd known what the game would become, I may have held onto my money, but more to the point if I knew that Paradox was going to make constant changes to the game in the way that they have (this was my first ever PDS product) I would definitely have held my money because people other than me would have control over whether I would continue to love the game..

 

[bleakie]

It's definitely not zero sum. If anything it's probably closer to a ratio. One bad feature in an otherwise perfect game is not often worth adding one more good feature because it taints everything. On the other hand one good feature won't often save it. I'm not really sure what the actual system is, but zero sum it isn't.

But let's face it, no game is going to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes at some point, and everyone's preference is different. It's always a mixed bag of good and bad features for any given game. The theoretical jump from 0 to 1 bad feature won't happen in real, as you always have a base number to begin with.

 

[net.split]

When I paid for EUIV I did it because I thought the game at the time was very, very good. That affects my feelings about whether, when and how the game should be changed, I'll be the first to admit that. And I'll be the first to admit that I like some of what they've done to improve it. But they've done a lot to move the game sideways, and a little to move it backward and I'm not really thrilled with the whole thing.

If I'd known what the game would become, I may have held onto my money, but more to the point if I knew that Paradox was going to make constant changes to the game in the way that they have (this was my first ever PDS product) I would definitely have held my money because people other than me would have control over whether I would continue to love the game..

You are new to these? Then are you aware that you can choose the version of the game that you want to play from within Steam?

You do in fact have control of the game you bought, but it may not be obvious at first how it's been achieved.

 

[durbal]

If you didn't master Rocket Jumping, you would lose consistantly to someone who had. So, as far as strategies go, it was "overpowered" was it not? It was definitely optimal.

So it meets everything you'd argue is necessary for something to be removed:

1) Optimal.
2) Overpowered.
3) Exploititive.
4) Necessary to do/master to win.

Kind of off topic, but I don't know what Quake 2 you were playing. In my version, there were grappling hooks and railguns and maps that had high ceilings often had people hanging off them with those grappling hooks and railguns. Railguns instagibbed everything (except maybe full armor pickup with full health IIRC) so much that they were altered for the competitive scene in Quake 3 so that being good with it and it alone could no longer win tournaments.

Rocket jumping as you describe it didn't become a huge thing until Half Life, specifically Team Fortress since it allowed traversing the map, and getting over walls very quick and easy. And Valve made unable to be fired while airborne, by the way.

You probably should've used skiing in Tribes as an example, but you'd still be wrong even if the analogy were apt since the skiing mechanics that made that game iconic were changed for the better in Tribes 2 so everyone didn't fly around as a heavy and had to use lighter classes too.

 

[BrokenSky]

While I can accept this statement as-written, I don't find it especially useful because I've never played a perfect game.

There is a famous game designer quote -- "A game is never finished. It is simply released." I'm not sure I can accept that the state of a game upon release is at all better than the same game developed for another 9 months by mostly the same development team to continue realizing the game's vision and correcting the elements that didn't pan out as hoped.

Well yes, obviously no game is perfect. The point was that if it were zero sum, one good feature of equivalent magnitude would balance out the one bad feature and it doesn't, as illustrated very well by the hypothetical scenario. Now personally I like most of the updates paradox puts out, but I often find that there are small but wide reaching bugs on release which make the game significantly less fun until the game is patched, even though the bug is often very small. I imagine a feature I disliked would be the same way, except that it would never be patched.

 

[Sian]

Hold on a sec. There's a difference between roguelikes and what this guy's talking about. With roguelikes, the rules of the game are tough, but ultimately consistent. Playing the Binding of Isaac, or FTL, or Nuclear Throne, you know what it takes to win, and sometimes the game doesn't give you what you need to get to the next level through RNG, or through risks you didn't take, or you lose them through risks you didn't take but should have -- either way, you know the rules, you know the game, you know why what you did did not work. This is what allows you to develop new strategies and better approaches to the game. FTL and TBoI in particular have done a great job of updating the game with new features, without breaking the meta very much, handing the players more tools within the rules rather than breaking balance outright.

I'm oldschool enough to classify all of your suggestions (Binding of Isaac, FTL and Nuclear Throne) as Rogue-light, and not properly Roguelikes, such as Nethack, Angband, Moria and all of their variants/successors... The titles you mentioned is no more Roguelike in my view, than Diablo I was (although it does have some inspirational heritage to the Roguelikes, specially with Hardcore mode)

 

[Incompetent]

Here's one way to think of exploits versus legitimate tactics:

Suppose there's some trick X you can do. Now imagine the devs teach the AI to do this trick, and the AI does it well (the AI doesn't do it for no reason, but does it consistently whenever it is advantageous, which could be very often). Is your reaction 'cool, the AI got smarter' or 'OMG AI cheese is ruining the game!'? If it's the latter, it's probably an exploit that shouldn't be in the game for anyone, human or AI.

This isn't a perfect test of course, because there are some tricks the AI has no hope of pulling implementing as ruthlessly as a human. (For instance, even if Wiz lets the AI use all the coring exploits, AE exploits and so on in the book, it still isn't smart enough to blob out as efficiently as a player can.) But it's a start at least.

 

[Beagá]

When I paid for EUIV I did it because I thought the game at the time was very, very good. That affects my feelings about whether, when and how the game should be changed, I'll be the first to admit that. And I'll be the first to admit that I like some of what they've done to improve it. But they've done a lot to move the game sideways, and a little to move it backward and I'm not really thrilled with the whole thing.

If I'd known what the game would become, I may have held onto my money, but more to the point if I knew that Paradox was going to make constant changes to the game in the way that they have (this was my first ever PDS product) I would definitely have held my money because people other than me would have control over whether I would continue to love the game..

It´s an old engine, truth be said there was going to be limits to it (I´m not really that surprised about how weird trade still is and lack of dinasties).

EU5 and Victoria 3 deserve a new engine (while keeping many core features, of course, but putting new ones that can´t really be put now).