No one is really defending it, but saying that changing it for something that might be WORSE isn´t a good idea.
why can't i choose what advisor and what level of them i want to use?
- Thread starter atwix
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No one is really defending it, but saying that changing it for something that might be WORSE isn´t a good idea.
Nations with 100000's of people could find an expert from that pool in a given field, even if he isn't the best in the world. You don't get to use RNG to explain the total non-existence of a single person who is an expert statesmen in the entirety of a nation like France of China. Pointless post #9.
#reversednonargumentapproach
It's not about find just some farmer who has some ideas about fortification. A +1 advisor is already an expert and among the best in the world.
More likely, we should have a system where we can put out an "advertisement" for an expert we require, and within a year or so, there's a 75% chance somebody like that would come to your court.
Still missing the chance though that foreign advisors are in reality spies and sabotage you, and they're sent by your rivals.
I think that you always should have at least a +1, +2 and a +3 advisor to choose, their bonuses would still be random of course, and is kind of weird a +3 advisor cost the same of a 60k~90k infantry, but that's ok haha.
What I don't like are event advisors, they're usually level 3 when you can barely afford level 1. It'd be good to be a able to choose their level and if you choose a lower level you get something extra, like some monarch points or some gold.
Could you try to be a less obvious troll?
Where did I say the system is perfect? Did you miss the part where I said level of advisor should be influenced by stuff like quality of universities? And that the game can´t simulate that? But let me repost it, due to your complete lack of character and always cherrypicking people´s posts:
Shove your patronising, kid. Funny how you self-proclamate an expert in everything, yet have so few real content. Probably in your little world inside your head, Nigeria should have more Noble Prizes than Denmark, since they have "a larger population".
Last edited:
at the very least there should be a plus 1, 2, and 3 for each type available at all times. Wiz said it is programmed to generally give that result but as we know it often doesn't.
Hmm, I wonder what conclusion we can draw if a copied argumentative approach, logic, and writing style gets accused of trolling. Amusing.
The game doesn't have any significant internal modeling. That's not a valid argument for or against the current implementation so I'm not sure why you're trying to use it; you could arbitrarily pick any abstraction and have it be equally justified by that. If you want me to go after your red herring, too bad.
That's 2 logical fallacies. Can we get 3rd?
We can! Hooray! And a strawman no less.
My argument isn't that Nigeria should have more noble prize winners than Denmark. My argument isn't even that Nigeria should have a single noble prize winner. My argument is that in the entire population of Nigeria, a government with the right amount of funds could almost certainly find someone who is pretty darned good a given subject of choice. If that equates to paying a premium on the desired advisor type in-game, fine. That would make every bit as much sense as making them totally random (and in 90% of countries at the start, equally likely between all of them at that, because in the game Denmark and a Sub-Saharan state have identical shots at an arbitrary advisor at the start...weren't you trying to argue against that? Wasn't the OP's post..."pointless"?).
For someone who likes to post in a demeaning tone, you sure are quick to start pointing fingers at someone else for copying your own style haha.
My style?
Who made the first flame post?
I´ll let a moderator handle you, and welcome to my Ignore trashbin. You never say anything useful anyway.
Who made the first flame post?
I´ll let a moderator handle you, and welcome to my Ignore trashbin. You never say anything useful anyway.
It really doesn't. I had a mod that added an advisor for each building category if you had at least one tier six building and even with the resulting pool of 10+ advisors a given skill level wasn't guaranteed. But at least I got to choose between 4 spymasters and 3 traders.
I find it a mark of honor to be on his ignore list. It means that he realized that spouting garbage and flaming (usually calling other people noobs, despite some of his hilarious question threads), wouldn't stop you from refuting his posts with sound logic.
I like the randomness, otherwise it's almost entirely false choice, as there are a few advisors that would never be chosen.
For example, morale advisors would never be used and could be removed entirely.
Is it stands now, you actually might be stuck with an actual choice of more Monarch points or a [more] useful advisor bonus.
It would be nice though if you were guaranteed that one of your choices was a +1 at all times, as that can have a huge long-term impact on MP generation to help decrease the distribution resulting from other RNG.
For example, morale advisors would never be used and could be removed entirely.
Is it stands now, you actually might be stuck with an actual choice of more Monarch points or a [more] useful advisor bonus.
It would be nice though if you were guaranteed that one of your choices was a +1 at all times, as that can have a huge long-term impact on MP generation to help decrease the distribution resulting from other RNG.
I wish that the level/type of advisors that spawned was dependant on other factors in your nation and that you could choose to have three +3 dip advisors if you so desired and if the advisor pool had them available.
Implement those changes and advisors actually begin to mean something in the game, you'll need to manage your empire a little better.
- Having a higher national base tax should mean you have a higher probability of spawning a +3 advisor to represent the fact you've got a larger population pool to draw talent from. Furthermore, higher base tax provinces should be the ones that are more likely to spawn the +3 advisors.
- Higher revolt risk in a province should decrease the probability of advisors spawning from that province entirely
- Provinces occupied by rebels should not be able to spawn advisors at all
- Provinces on the frontier should be more likely to spawn military advisors
- Provinces close to the capital should be more likely to spawn diplomatic advisors
- Provinces that are neither of the two aforementioned should be more likely to spawn administrative advisors
Implement those changes and advisors actually begin to mean something in the game, you'll need to manage your empire a little better.
- 2
Since we're already on the topic of choosing exactly what adviser level and type we want, I'd like to add a few things.
I'd like to choose my generals' stats, as well. Sometimes, I just feel like I deserve a 6/6/6/2 leader.
I'd like to choose my rulers' stats, on top of that. Again, sometimes I feel like I've earned a solid 6/6/6 ruler.
I'd also like to choose what dice rolls I get in battle. Occasionally, I have the feeling that I've done so much to deserve back to back 12 rolls on my dice.
Come on, Paradox. How can you not see that I deserve this?
I'd like to choose my generals' stats, as well. Sometimes, I just feel like I deserve a 6/6/6/2 leader.
I'd like to choose my rulers' stats, on top of that. Again, sometimes I feel like I've earned a solid 6/6/6 ruler.
I'd also like to choose what dice rolls I get in battle. Occasionally, I have the feeling that I've done so much to deserve back to back 12 rolls on my dice.
Come on, Paradox. How can you not see that I deserve this?
You've taken a somewhat reasonable request and blown it way out of proportion. Good job!
- 3
That's a good question. Perhaps we can answer it by the words "pointless OP", which occurred before I had any presence in the thread. If that isn't flame enough, then I wonder what "shove your patronizing", "kid", and a triple-tap fallacy fall under. Surely not flaming perhaps?
I have said nothing of a comparable nature to that, nor do I need to do so. If you think you can address the points I did make, feel free to do so. I do invite actual discussion regarding them, regardless of whether that is reciprocal.
On that note...let's get some useful discussion:
I would argue that if this is true, it exposes a flaw in the advisors themselves. While not all advisor options necessarily have to be equal, if an advisor would never be chosen given alternatives (and this is a point I agree with), it is a red flag that perhaps that advisor needs a rework or bonus tweak.
What if you made a cost trade-off? You could either take either the current pool...or pay the cost of a tier 2 advisor on a tier 1 of your choice. That might not be the best end-solution, but just an example of how you could make choices here more meaningful.
Making an entire post of incomparable straw men is no way to make a convincing point. I could reply asking why it is you want to introduce lag into single player too, and it would be roughly equally useful as the quoted post ^_^.
This thread has taken a nose-dive, why are people finding it so difficult to discuss?
- 3
kinda funny, seems i found a topic that inspires heavy black/white opinions.
Some of the people here are perfectionists at hart, and really liked the "make your own advisor" thing.
My point is that whenever an advisor dies, it usually gives you the same type, and the level of him is random. All i ask is that they adapt the level to your income...and maybe adapt the type of advisor to your national ideas, with EVENTS. It would prevent screenshots of players who had 4 lvl 1 artists in pool.
Having 3 lvl 3 advisors at 1444 start is useless. Having 6 lvl 1-2 advisors with 500+ ducats income is useless too.
But hey, nevermind, forget i said anything.