Why nerf hordes more

[AKronblad]

Double digit mechanics have been altered solely because of DDRJake, the true obsession with it is PI's .



This argument is a red herring. This topic is not about mass conquest or WC. This topic is about the biased and inane representation of hordes in-game, where nations that were much more advanced historically get no new units while nations that were isolated and backward, then wiped out do get new units in their tech group, and the removal of strategy using foreign cores with a ridiculous "that was a bug because now we're saying it is" defense. Using a logical fallacy to defend the implementation is a bit weak ^_^.



Nerf Kathiawar.



Ethiopia is obviously too good.



PI screwed up bigtime buffing Georgia, obviously they're too good.



Dai Viet > Mongolia so OBVIOUSLY Dai Viet must also be nerfed by your "logic".



By your (non) logic, every country in the world needs a nerf. You can make that argument of course, but it's out of place in this thread, doesn't refute the issue presented in the thread (why are weak nations being nerfed in an ahistorical way, and on top of that having one unrealistic workaround removed without removing the reason the workaround was needed), and comes off as narrative that doesn't address anything here.



They imply an entire set of people as sub-human idiots against historical evidence. Yes, people don't like that.

As a matter of fact, I'd like the WHOLE game warfare to be nerfed, not only for hordes. I want to point that out: I don't favour explicit nerfing of hordes.

But you're right, this is not the thread for that.

So although I still hold on to my opinions, I respect yours, and also offer my apologies for having hijacked this thread and made it off-topic. I'm sure that even if vanilla doesn't get changed in line with your opinions, there will be mods created that make hordes' situation more to your liking.

 

[Captain Frye]

That was clearly after they reformed their government.

Mongols and Tatars are physically unable to use firearms until their government decides to become settled, a well established historical fact; when attempting to lay hands on a musket as a nomad they are strongly pushed away by a WIZardlike force.

Not sure if sarcasm =))

 

[oblio-]

As a matter of fact, I'd like the WHOLE game warfare to be nerfed, not only for hordes. I want to point that out: I don't favour explicit nerfing of hordes.

But you're right, this is not the thread for that.

So although I still hold on to my opinions, I respect yours, and also offer my apologies for having hijacked this thread and made it off-topic. I'm sure that even if vanilla doesn't get changed in line with your opinions, there will be mods created that make hordes' situation more to your liking.

The whole point of this game is warfare. That's what it does best, that what it should do - the develops themselves said that the game is about war. I think that in the latest dev stream they even said half-jokingly that it's about painting the map.

We should nerf warfare once we have something interesting and interactive to do during peace time, but not before.
Otherwise we have gratuitous changes like these that take a lot of fun out of the game.

 

[gaius valerius]

... that it's about painting the map...

The definition of "painting" is in essence rather personal.... so that is not a sound argument for any cause.

 

[Novacat]

The definition of "painting" is in essence rather personal.... so that is not a sound argument for any cause.

Well, there are those two achievements centered around world conquest...

 

[Frederick III]

Well, there are those two achievements centered around world conquest...

This argument is why I hate achievements. Just because there is an achievement about world conquest doesn't mean the game is about world conquest.

 

[Novacat]

This argument is why I hate achievements. Just because there is an achievement about world conquest doesn't mean the game is about world conquest.

Paradox has stated multiple times that the primary focus of the game is war and conquest. Infact, they have said multiple times that peace is only there for you to prepare for the next war. This is the biggest reason why they really are not keen on adding peacetime mechanics to the game.

 

[Rainbow Mirage]

Paradox has stated multiple times that the primary focus of the game is war and conquest. Infact, they have said multiple times that peace is only there for you to prepare for the next war. This is the biggest reason why they really are not keen on adding peacetime mechanics to the game.

The extended truce timers makes no sense then.

 

[Novacat]

The extended truce timers makes no sense then.

Balance changes are primarily due to the devs multiplayer sessions. Chances are one of the devs who was playing Muscovy or France got pummeled to dust so they introduced the truce timer change so they could 'recover' before the next war.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This argument is why I hate achievements. Just because there is an achievement about world conquest doesn't mean the game is about world conquest.

The game is about whatever you want it to be. It's not like you have a "win condition". The achievement merely says that the devs intend for world conquest to be possible, not that the game is necessarily about world conquest only.

In other words, the tuning is intentionally to allow it, but not to tell you that you must or should. You can take 1st in score other ways too, but even score is an arbitrary goal metric. There's a reason even elite players in single player set their own goals in a good % of games; it's a very open-ended game. Barring WC and doing this to hordes both remove some of that open-ended possibility without adding anything to the experience.

The extended truce timers makes no sense then.

Your assessment here is accurate, PI never defended them well just as PI has never defended any of the horde nerfs since I've come on the forum well. If they had never nerfed anything except making westernization auto-reform government so you couldn't keep it, hordes would have been fine. Even now, hordes just need to get new units or have the legitimacy requirement axed/altered and not to have this garbage autonomy penalty levied on them without historic basis (the western hordes were not aberrantly bad compared to other eastern Europeans). Good players will succeed with them regardless because of their base tax, looting mechanic, and early military power, heck good players can own most of all of Asia with Kochin. That doesn't mean that these nations should suffer an absurd cultural stereotype with insulting ahistorical limitations.

Think about how Serbian players would react if they go no new units and had a dunce government, or Poland, or Castile. There exists equal basis for doing this to them, IE none but that at some point during this period, they struggled.

Balance changes are primarily due to the devs multiplayer sessions. Chances are one of the devs who was playing Muscovy or France got pummeled to dust so they introduced the truce timer change so they could 'recover' before the next war.

The change doesn't hold up in MP either, it was just a bad change with some potential to add strategy but an implementation that does no such thing ^_^.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Balance changes are primarily due to the devs multiplayer sessions. Chances are one of the devs who was playing Muscovy or France got pummeled to dust so they introduced the truce timer change so they could 'recover' before the next war.

Am I correct in assuming that you pulled this out of your ass?

 

[lordelenath]

Am I correct in assuming that you pulled this out of your ass?

It was stated several times that they're indeed balancing on the basis of said sessions. I'm 99,9% sure that's not the sole basis however and probably not the primary one either.

 

[Stategem161803]

Wiz has stated that most balancing is around single-player and majors such as France, Muscovy, Castille, etc. this is because these are the most commonly played nations.

What's illogical about the horde nerf is that they didn't already hinder the expansion of majors. Even if you make the MP argument that hordes are OP in MP, that's still not really true. If a player is better than you, it doesn't really matter who they play as, they will still beat you.

If you put several average players as Western European majors and DDRJake as any random non-Western OPM, Jake's still going to have the stronger empire by game's end. That is to say, it's not an argument for nerfing Kochin, Kashmir, Mongolia, etc.

Should hordes be significantly weaker than Muscovy so that new players can succeed as them? Sure.

But weren't they already?

 

[lordelenath]

I don't think the intention behind the foreign core recruiting removal was to weaken the Hordes. They simply felt the mechanic was awkward, convoluted and opaque (which is true imo) and since the general idea currently seems to be streamlining, UI-Improvements and added comfort functionality they felt it should be removed. In exchange they were not willing/not able to come up with something else for Hordes or they simply didn't think about the implications for Hordes at all.

The result is the same, but the intention is important too, after all. Which is probably why Wiz came over and told us to propose some ideas how to improve Hordes - they did not specifically want to nerf Hordes this time, they just didn't like the mechanic in general.

 

[RobRoy3]

It was stated several times that they're indeed balancing on the basis of said sessions. I'm 99,9% sure that's not the sole basis however and probably not the primary one either.

Wiz has stated that most balancing is around single-player and majors such as France, Muscovy, Castille, etc. this is because these are the most commonly played nations.

Yeah, I've seen almost contradictory statements from Johan and Wiz. Could be context. Could be slightly different visions. Could be changes in direction.

What's always bothered me, though, is the changes that are not really attempts to balance anything, but conscious attempts to close perceived "exploits". Some of that may be warranted. Frequently, though, "exploit" nerfs go too far and shut down legitimate game mechanics (e.g., hiring foreign troop) or have unintended consequences that far exceed any damage the exploit ever caused (e.g., nerfing military access). Or they eliminate an entertaining non-standard version of play that wasn't really hurting anyone's enjoyment of the game <insert huge, but debatable, list here>.

I don't think the intention behind the foreign core recruiting removal was to weaken the Hordes.

Mmmmm. I think Wiz came pretty close to saying that. In this thread, IIRC (or maybe the latest Dev Diary). I know they're long, but...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The result is the same, but the intention is important too, after all. Which is probably why Wiz came over and told us to propose some ideas how to improve Hordes - they did not specifically want to nerf Hordes this time, they just didn't like the mechanic in general.

Untrue. Giving hordes a 25% autonomy floor is a strict nerf to hordes specifically. That kind of slap in the face to those in that culture group would cause tremendous outrage if it was done to a group better represented here.

Mmmmm. I think Wiz came pretty close to saying that. In this thread, IIRC (or maybe the latest Dev Diary). I know they're long, but...

He did indeed. He claimed it was pretty much irrelevant with the new pip rebalancing (something that contradicts his assertion of units peaking at different times; those two statements contradict), but that it was an "exploit" and "bug" that hordes could do it.

That's a hell of a "bug" to leave go for over a year. Of course, that's because it actually wasn't. It's not the first time the devs pretend something to be an exploit only after the fact ^_^.

 

[Stategem161803]

It also doesn't only affect hordes. Foreign unit recruitment is something that I've done often even as a western nation.

 

[RobRoy3]

That's a hell of a "bug" to leave go for over a year. Of course, that's because it actually wasn't. It's not the first time the devs pretend something to be an exploit only after the fact ^_^.

It's the equating of every "exploit" with "bug" that bothers me. Most of the former are harmless, generally too tedious for most players tastes, but occasionally entertaining. The ill-conceived need to eliminate every exploit that someone like DDRJake identifies distracts them from genuine bugs or other areas of the game that absolutely do need attention (e.g., do they improve the woefully antiquated and now inadequate mission system or just nerf Jake's latest trick?)

It also doesn't only affect hordes. Foreign unit recruitment is something that I've done often even as a western nation.

Me, too. I'd be sad to see that feature vanish, in any case. I'm irritated that's it's being removed SOLELY because someone thinks it's being abused by Horde players who have to use every trick they can to compensate for Paradox's constant (and ahistorical) Horde nerfs.

If we're constantly nerfing Hordes simply to assure that AI neighbors will be absorbing them quickly and consistently, that's fine. But I'd prefer directed historical events to implement such things than nerfing other mechanics that have legitimate, if niche, uses.

 

[Captain Frye]

The thing is, most casual players don't even know that you can recruit units from foreign cores. PI removed yet another variety of play, making eu4 experience more generic.

 

[Druplesnubb]

How did foreign recruitment work exactly? What happened if one province had several foreign cores, for instance?