What is Paradox's Desired Scope for Player Accomplishments?

[Mulleks]

Looking at these forums, besides a general lack of how the game mechanics function and disagreements about balancing for solo and multiplay it seems most people have wildly varying stances on what a player should be able to accomplish.

Many seem to be of the mind that the player should be no more able to accomplish what their starting culture accomplished historically. Some seem of the mind that the game should be based on fun with interesting mechanics that while they may lead to wildly inacurate borders, I'm looking at you Golden Horde Hawaii, they still lead to a challenging and tough game. Has or will Paradox make a statement as to their desired breakdown of achievement strata? Do they desire a 1% WC rate? Maybe a 10% accomplishment rate of that goal? Was three mountains intended to never be attained?

 

[Morwys]

I doubt it, since I think they put achievements there for the mob to enjoy. I have no idea if they ever desired any rate of achievement acomplishment. I can't say, and I think game development shouldn't take achievements in mind. But that's all my humble opinion.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I think they want the game to be multifaceted, so newbies can get instant gratification(pulling off 1 or 2 ahistorical feats with a major European power), while pros can do the power plays(WC with an OPM).

I think that's what made CK2 such a successful game; on the surface it was accessible, beneath it was complex.

 

[Riidi]

I doubt it, since I think they put achievements there for the mob to enjoy. I have no idea if they ever desired any rate of achievement acomplishment. I can't say, and I think game development shouldn't take achievements in mind. But that's all my humble opinion.

To what question did you answer "I doubt it"?

 

[brifbates]

To what question did you answer "I doubt it"?

Has or will Paradox make a statement...? would be my guess although it really goes for all of them.

My feeling is that P-dox had no interest in achievements after their experience with them in DW but were egged on by forum posters and/or steam to add some in for steam's achievement system so they repackaged the existing ones for EU 3 and said "there you go, done" as the path of least resistance without any real care about how doable some actually were. Note that only a handful actually changed from EU 3 to 4 (African Power, Norwegian Wood, No Trail of Tears, and Early Reich are the only ones I can remember as being changed) while the vast majority are copy/paste.

 

[Mulleks]

I doubt it, since I think they put achievements there for the mob to enjoy. I have no idea if they ever desired any rate of achievement acomplishment. I can't say, and I think game development shouldn't take achievements in mind. But that's all my humble opinion.

To me with the way the achievements are structured you can see them as a barometer for player challenge. When Ryukyu was attainable it was by pushing every single rule in the game as far out there as you possibly could as well as burning yourself out on the game. I think when paradox makes certain achievements unattainable you can see the balance as being off, when the achievements are too attainable the game is also off.

This changes when they note that certain ones are not normally intended to get. Though you're right on them being unlikely to make a statement as some could be there as simply available as the game becomes more and more easy via DLC.

 

[Xara]

The achievements are all sorted by difficulty within the text file defining them. Four are listed as "insane".

 

[RogerWilco]

I don't think PI will make clear statements. Personally I'd like the difficulty setting to be the overall determining factor.

I would like that on Easy World Conquest is possible and even a mediocre player can go well beyond historical limits. This is where Golden Horde Hawaii lives.
I would like that on Normal World Conquest is a feat that only the best can pull off, and the average player will end up with somewhat historical limits.
I would like that on Hard quite a few players would have a hard time surviving until 1820, even as Spain or England, but very skilled players can still achieve the British Empire.

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

I don't think Paradox will make a direct statement either. It would be a kind of political suicide.

 

[might]

Well they did say this in the Ryukyu AAR

There'd been some debate in the office about WC being possible at all - but as I anticipated, someone found a way, and what a way. Nice job!

 

[Morwys]

To what question did you answer "I doubt it"?

Has or will Paradox make a statement as to their desired breakdown of achievement strata?

To the people saying that achievements are some kind of measuring device to player challenge: I remember a time when there was no such things as achievements. They were introduced, mostly in online games - notably in MMORPGs - as content. Back then I thought they were BS enforced on players, as a cheap way to capitalize on a compulsive and addicted fan base.

In time, specially with Steam, they became a 'vanity' item of sorts, much like the game icons in these forums - like tribal or prison tattoos, they gave the player a certain status quo in the community. That's why, in many forums, you'll see people with signatures consisting in nothing but proof of very hard achievements. As a way of having a solid argument without words, you could simply demonstrate your superiority over other players visually - suposedly rendering critics obsolete.

Now, the challenge part was always there: one likes to be challenged and to overcome them. But achievements gave players means to show them off - official peacock feathers, if you will - and they're likely not disappearing. While every good gamer I know likes to be good at a game, most like even more to be admired for it.

My personal opinion, as I stated, is that no game should be developed with achievements in mind - simply because they're 'fake' content. They are not game modes, options, areas, classes, characters or anything of the sort. They're a cheap vanity item, invented for the sole purpose of glorifying the most OCD or skillfull players at the cost of their time and effort. Some will argue that this is valid, while other will argue to the contrary.

I think that regardless of their validity, gameplay should revolve around balance between the AI and the player and the players in MP, making the game fun and interesting for the biggest player base possible. Achievements can be unatainable, as far as I'm concerned - as some in fact are in MP games, like achievements and badges related to timed events, like some icons given in this forum, like the '200k Club'/'500k club' ones or the Call to Arms event - because they're just vanity items, that should be ancillary to the enjoyment of the game, not part of it.

If the OP or others feel frustrated that they can't 'achieve' certain achievements, I can only recommend that they learn how to ignore them.

 

[ck2plusdlacc]

To the people saying that achievements are some kind of measuring device to player challenge: I remember a time when there was no such things as achievements. They were introduced, mostly in online games - notably in MMORPGs - as content. Back then I thought they were BS enforced on players, as a cheap way to capitalize on a compulsive and addicted fan base.

To clarify something, before someone else runs with it, achievements far pre-date online gaming and their current form derives from the style of achievement implementation popularised by the Gamerscore system on the Xbox. A system that initially catered primarily to single player games and most notably FPS games.

Achievements are fine as long as they're completely ignored by everyone sensible enough to do so.

 

[Morwys]

:laugh:

To clarify something, before someone else runs with it, achievements far pre-date online gaming and their current form derives from the style of achievement implementation popularised by the Gamerscore system on the Xbox. A system that initially catered primarily to single player games and most notably FPS games.

From the Wikipedia article "Achievements (video gaming)":

Although individual games on various platforms had implemented systems of achievements, the original implementation of the achievements system as popularized is widely considered to be Microsoft's Xbox 360 Gamerscore system, introduced in 2005

I'm not saying that's your source, by the way. Maybe you really knew that before hand. I just get mad when people try to look smart by making me look dumb. Just contribute with the discussion, like you did with your next phrase:

Achievements are fine as long as they're completely ignored by everyone sensible enough to do so.

I agree, but sometimes I fear that game developing may start to take this BS into consideration - can you imagine if they ever started selling Achievement Pack DLC or something? That would be the end of the deal for me.

Also, I was refering to my own experience in gaming - and since I've mostly stopped playing consoles ten years ago, I'll admit I'm clueless to all things console related. When it was eventually extended to the PC in 2007 and 2008, I was playing WoW extensively and that's where I've seen it shine (I know that Windows LIVE had something to do with it, but again, I only buy games from Steam so who cares).

This discussion is pointless, anyway.

 

[Riidi]

I'm not saying that's your source, by the way. Maybe you really knew that before hand.

Don't dissemble. You totally are. If you want to call someone out for looking a fact up and correcting you at least be man enough to do it directly.

 

[Morwys]

Don't dissemble. You totally are. If you want to call someone out for looking a fact up and correcting you at least be man enough to do it directly.

I was being ironic... But it doesn't matter, I'll do it directly then if you require: ck2plusdlacc looked up for something only to spat some 'fact' in my face to look better than me and I find that condescending, offensive and generally unconstructive. IMHO, this thread is a pointless waste of time, aimed to bitch about how the OP thinks some of the achievements in the game are unattainable: a thinly veiled way to complain about a 'feature' that I think it's a cash grab dumbass feature.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[DDRJake]

Currently 0.03% of players have The Three Mountains and 0.05% of players have World Conquest achievements

These figures were at 0.03% and 0.04% before 1.2, and there's the missions exploit to keep in mind as well.

Of course, I've heard tale that people can use some program to unlock achievements, making the stats void, so there's that too.

Each to their own, but in my eyes Paradox have made a pretty good system of achievements, much like Super Meat Boy. There are simple achievements, like royal marriage and win a war which everyone can get, harder ones that can take some work to get like forming the HRE or taking over Great Britain as an Irish minor, then there are the "insane" ones which, to accomplish, will take a great deal of planning and work to get. World conquest and Sunset Invasion, I'm looking at you.

And if you don't like achievements, they're completely optional.

 

[Strumpetplaya]

I was being ironic... But it doesn't matter, I'll do it directly then if you require: ck2plusdlacc looked up for something only to spat some 'fact' in my face to look better than me and I find that condescending, offensive and generally unconstructive. IMHO, this thread is a pointless waste of time, aimed to bitch about how the OP thinks some of the achievements in the game are unattainable: a thinly veiled way to complain about a 'feature' that I think it's a cash grab dumbass feature.

Is that clear enough for you?

xD

Anybody who -doesn't- know achievements originated on the Xbox hasn't been gaming very long, or simply doesn't know much about gaming, and certainly shouldn't be writing essays about achievements.

 

[Riidi]

xD

Anybody who -doesn't- know achievements originated on the Xbox hasn't been gaming very long, or simply doesn't know much about gaming, and certainly shouldn't be writing essays about achievements.

What is "get all the stars in mario 64" if not an achievement?

"100% completion" has been a thing since practically the dawn of gaming.

 

[Strumpetplaya]

I don't believe that to be the same thing at all, as collecting stars was the entire point of the game. Achievements as they are used in this context are typically external and have nothing to do with 100% completion. Many games can be 100% completed without getting all the achievements, because many achievements require you to put self-limitations on yourself while playing, or even just to do pointless crap like leave a game running for X amount of time, or get 50 headshots while spinning in a 360 and jumping in the air.

 

[Riidi]

I don't believe that to be the same thing at all, as collecting stars was the entire point of the game. Achievements as they are used in this context are typically external and have nothing to do with 100% completion. Many games can be 100% completed without getting all the achievements, because many achievements require you to put self-limitations on yourself while playing, or even just to do pointless crap like leave a game running for X amount of time, or get 50 headshots while spinning in a 360 and jumping in the air.

It's certainly true that the scope and specificity of achievements has dramatically broadened since the xbox, but things like trophies or awards for completing optional challenges have been in games for a very long time.