Worries about too much player control

[elandread]

Seriously, I haven't read a halfway sensible suggestion in this regard. What should it do and what should it look like?

For instance, like this:

On cappies and AI investment strategy

As we all know, the capitalist AI in Victoria 2 often made very unfortunate investments that resulted in player frustration and strongly incentivized state capitalist/command economy systems. Due to this, it appears that there is an incentive to...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Lordof]

I share the same concerns.

As of now instead of pruning the branches, you are the one sticking the branch with glue, not letting the branch to grow on its own.

 

[Spartakusbund]

sexual freedom

What?

 

[Woifee]

Yes, but it's not the same AI. You are asking for an extra AI to be programmed for the pops of the capitalists, although the pops have no mechanics for something like that. The capitalist cannot have an economic empire. If I hand over the countries of KI to an RNG, it will be all the more difficult for them to control the situation. It is far easier to tell the AI which buildings it should build in total,

I agree to a point. State AI has different Goals than a capitalist AI. They have different goals. But both should be able to realise wich investments are smart and profitable and wich are not. And businesses should be able to fail, Investors and states should be able to make dumb investments as plenty of investors and states do in RL. Factories failing is fine, states economcly failing is fine (from a gameplay realism point of view). But the AI should also be able to do well economicly, Investors should be able to make the right decicions as well.

Investmentpools just don't feel right to me. If the player can acces the investors money no matter what there is absolutly no need to tax them anyway. And in the end a communist dicktatorship just might feel the same as liberal democracy.

And part of the fun in Vic 2 was to make the best out of the crappy cards elections handed to you.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

I share the same concerns.

As of now instead of pruning the branches, you are the one sticking the branch with glue, not letting the branch to grow on its own.

That's a really good metaphor, and I'm kinda I mad I didn't think of it.

 

[alanschu]

I worded the initial post awfully.

My worries are more of a general nature, and not specifically about the latest dev diary (although that informs the worries). I'm afraid that Vic 3 will put so much control onto the player that the game becomes one of maximizing for tiny efficiencies rather than roleplaying a nation. It is a fine line between nation building and spreadsheet optimizing for GSGs, and letting the player control everything starts, to me, to push game design into power playing -- not the roleplay.

It's fine if you want to minmax Vic 3! There is nothing wrong with that, and it can be fun sometimes. I just don't want it to become the only playstyle.

I mean it's still early. I think most fans of the series (and hopefully future fans) appreciate that the level of direct control, especially over how pops act, shouldn't be absolute. Hopefully as time comes and up to/including release the concerns end up being unfounded!

 

[ImperatorLJ]

I mean it's still early. I think most fans of the series (and hopefully future fans) appreciate that the level of direct control, especially over how pops act, shouldn't be absolute. Hopefully as time comes and up to/including release the concerns end up being unfounded!

Aye! I have faith in the development team, and I like Wiz's vision; while I worry, I don't dread haha

 

[alexti]

The AI couldn't handle it. The AI just didn't play the game. At some point the RNG had simply built factories that yielded halfway taxes. That’s it.

If AI can't handle it, there is an easy way to solve this problem - let the player make investment pool decisions for all AI countries

 

[Vernichtere]

If AI can't handle it, there is an easy way to solve this problem - let the player make investment pool decisions for all AI countries

You are free to program a mod for Vicky I-II, which teaches the countries AI how to deal with the RNG capitalists. If you did it, you can tell here that it would be easy and desirable.

The basic things are already fixed. The developers won't make any more movements before the release - definitely not here. To do this, they would have to program a query for every capitalist and also a logic. Then more or less how the countries will react to this logic.


What they will do is adjust what restrictions the investment pool will have in terms of industries, provinces, events, laws and forms of government.

 

[alexti]

You are free to program a mod for Vicky I-II, which teaches the countries AI how to deal with the RNG capitalists. If you did it, you can tell here that it would be easy and desirable.

Of course, we usually have to write mods to create better AI for computer games, but I don't think it should be a standard.

The basic things are already fixed. The developers won't make any more movements before the release - definitely not here. To do this, they would have to program a query for every capitalist and also a logic. Then more or less how the countries will react to this logic.

Why do you keep stating such implementation details as facts? Do you have insider knowledge? Developers comment seem to suggest otherwise...

 

[Vernichtere]

Of course, we usually have to write mods to create better AI for computer games, but I don't think it should be a standard.


Why do you keep stating such implementation details as facts? Do you have insider knowledge? Developers comment seem to suggest otherwise...

Please watch the streams. They say that they think they have roughly finished the economic system. Was at the convention somewhere.

Should they actually give in there, they will simply introduce queries as with their predecessors and then the country AI will simply accept the state that is rolled.

I would certainly like to have a system of companies that compete with one another. But for that you would have to knock down the Pops system and other aspects again. Which might be interesting for Part IV.

 

[alexti]

Please watch the streams. They say that they think they have roughly finished the economic system. Was at the convention somewhere.

I am not aware they have talked about the implementation details. But regarding the design choices, the later comments from them indicated that it's either was oversimplified in the original presentations or that system is a work in progress. Later comments certainly looked much more promising and devs said that they are aware of the issues raised in the forums and reassured us that they have it under control.

 

[Alyssea]

Personally, I'm more worried about Victoria 3 being more "Great Man"-oriented than it should be. From what screenshots we see, rulers have stats, and the Authority capacity is explicitly representing the head of state's personal power. Which is ridiculous to me -- you can have absolutist, authoritarian governments where the power is not centered around the head of state. Victoria 2 not even giving a country's rulers a name is a bit much, but I'd rather have that than what ruler you get determining your entire playstyle (early-game EU4 being the worst offender in that regard).

 

[Rhazzaz0r]

Personally, I'm more worried about Victoria 3 being more "Great Man"-oriented than it should be. From what screenshots we see, rulers have stats, and the Authority capacity is explicitly representing the head of state's personal power. Which is ridiculous to me -- you can have absolutist, authoritarian governments where the power is not centered around the head of state. Victoria 2 not even giving a country's rulers a name is a bit much, but I'd rather have that than what ruler you get determining your entire playstyle (early-game EU4 being the worst offender in that regard).

Its honestly more the goverments power over the public. If you are republic with only a state controlled press, no freedom of assembly et cetera then you will also have a high authority, so its not just the head of state. And I think having rulers that actually have some influence on the game rather then beeing completely irrelevant is also a change for the better. As long as the impact isn't too big á la your entire resource generation beeing dependant on your monarch. But a few 10% here and there why not.

 

[Alyssea]

Its honestly more the goverments power over the public. If you are republic with only a state controlled press, no freedom of assembly et cetera then you will also have a high authority, so its not just the head of state. And I think having rulers that actually have some influence on the game rather then beeing completely irrelevant is also a change for the better. As long as the impact isn't too big á la your entire resource generation beeing dependant on your monarch. But a few 10% here and there why not.

From the dev diary:

Authority represents the Head of State’s personal power and ability to enact change in the country through decree.

So yeah, I have my reasons to worry, even if it could very well be just bad wording on Pdx's part.

 

[safferli]

A bunch of posts delted. Personal attacks are not tolerated here.