Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 12th of April 2022

[durbal]

My argument as to why this is relevant is that you are making a choice between modifiers. Assuming a set of perfectly balanced modifiers, your proposition incentivises choosing more modifiers, instead of speacilising at one particular due to diminishing returns, which would homogenise the viable playstyles.

My point is that there aren't diminishing returns. +100 efficiency would grant you an extra dev point over what you would've had otherwise (i.e. if it costs 10 mana for 1 dev, +100 efficiency would grant you 2 dev for the same 10 mana). +200 efficiency then would grant you 3 dev for the same 10 mana.

 

[001andstillAlive]

The best way i can come up with nerfing devving without killing tall play would be to either add to an existing/create a new mechanic (or just building), that lowers the scaling from a province already being highly developed, while nerfing general dev cost modifiers, so its more of an investement than "you need to conquer lots of low-dev land so you can push it all", like the steppes rn for eastern countries, especially before they nerfed the cossack manpower privilege.

Basically in a way so that devving from, say, 10 to 30 dev costs the same for someone as right now, but its more expensive from 10-20 OR the requirement to invest in either a building (lets say courthouses reduce the stacking modifer to dev cost by a third) or maybe expand infrastructure.

 

[Aloraand]

My point is that there aren't diminishing returns. +100 efficiency would grant you an extra dev point over what you would've had otherwise (i.e. if it costs 10 mana for 1 dev, +100 efficiency would grant you 2 dev for the same 10 mana). +200 efficiency then would grant you 3 dev for the same 10 mana.

I think we are talking about a different thing.

What I am talking about is this: you are forced into a choice between two modifiers a) 20% efficiency for action 1 and 0% efficiency for action 2 b) 10% efficiency for both actions. Assuming the actual payoff for each action is equal, you should prefer the second choice, since the total cost 2*100/110 = 20/11 = 120/6 is strictly less than 100/120 + 100/100 = 11/6 = 121/66. This becomes even more pronounced with higher values of efficiency, hence you always want to have more modifiers instead of stacking one. Hence homogenisation.

Does this explanation of how there is a diminishing value make sense? (The first derivative of your proposed function is an increasing function).

 

[grommile]

Anglicanism needs a rework I'd rather be an Animist instead of Anglican

They can rework it as much as they like, I'd still rather be Animist than Anglican because Anglican was a completely unnecessary exercise in English exceptionalism and in the unlikely event I ever want to play England again, "Protestant with Bishops and Divorces" does the job just fine by my reckoning.

(Also Innovativeness, from the same DLC as Anglicanism, is a Win Harder button for the player, and the game needs fewer of those, not more.)

 

[durbal]

I think we are talking about a different thing.

What I am talking about is this: you are forced into a choice between two modifiers a) 20% efficiency for action 1 and 0% efficiency for action 2 b) 10% efficiency for both actions. Assuming the actual payoff for each action is equal, you should prefer the second choice, since the total cost 2*100/110 = 20/11 = 120/6 is strictly less than 100/120 + 100/100 = 11/6 = 121/66. This becomes even more pronounced with higher values of efficiency, hence you always want to have more modifiers instead of stacking one. Hence homogenisation.

Does this explanation of how there is a diminishing value make sense? (The first derivative of your proposed function is an increasing function).

No, because as I keep saying you are looking at it as a cost reduction when that is not how efficiency is measured. That's the entire reason for moving toward calculations of efficiency since it's more telling in terms of what you actually get from increases in efficiency. Plus it's a linear function: 2x efficiency results in 2x the output, 3x the efficiency results in 3x the output, etc. By looking at it the old way (i.e. in terms of 'cost reduction') the function isn't linear and that's why the effective value (i.e. output) scales to infinity as cost reduction approaches zero -- which is entirely the problem we aim to solve. In other words, -10% dev cost when you have -90% already is infinitely better than -10% dev cost when you have -10%, -20%, -X% etc. so the idea that the 'choice between two modifiers' matters is even more difficult to quantify when looking at it that way anyway since what you receive (in terms of output) is not just based on what the modifier gives you but also how many of them you have already -- again, which is the problem we aim to solve.

If you were to take the first derivative of an efficiency function it's a constant since the efficiency function itself is linear (being just of the type y = mx where m is the efficiency).

 

[Aloraand]

No, because as I keep saying you are looking at it as a cost reduction when that is not how efficiency is measured. That's the entire reason for moving toward calculations of efficiency since it's more telling in terms of what you actually get from increases in efficiency. Plus it's a linear function: 2x efficiency results in 2x the output, 3x the efficiency results in 3x the output, etc. By looking at it the old way (i.e. in terms of 'cost reduction') the function isn't linear and that's why the effective value based on output scales to infinity as cost reduction approaches zero -- which is entirely the problem we aim to solve.

You pick the efficiency modifiers, because you want to save mana. So yes, I am looking at it in terms of mana saved and gave you an example of the type of disincentive to modifier stacking your change can create.

Simply put, I am not aiming to make my country the most "efficient" but rather as strong as I can with the resources I have I.e. Mana, which efficiency helps me to do.

Edit: (apparently replied to unfinished comment)
The blowups in efficiency they your are mentioning can cause what I've called degenerate gameplay, and yes your choice prevents that, as I've admitted in the very first post. But, it comes at a cost of homogenisation, which makes it a design question. (There was a whole debate about this in the wow community with soft caps on secondary stats, I can dig this out if you are interested in yet another example). My point was that since EU4 is not competitive and the blowups as x tends to 100 can actually be fun to play, so it's okay if they exist.

E.g. 100% recruitment time reduction with n% morale recovery speed would support a new play style, which could be fun (much faster wars without reinforcements, at potentially much higher gold cost).

But again, since the two modifiers that you can reasonably stack that high and want to stack that high are ccr and dev cost, which don't actually create fun playstyles, I agree with you.

 

[grommile]

My point was that since EU4 is not competitive

EU4 is not competitive (people don't run prize tournaments), but it is confrontational (people, however insane I might find this myself, play the game in non-cooperative multiplayer with internet randos) and so degenerate gameplay is a problem that needs fixing.

 

[Aloraand]

EU4 is not competitive (people don't run prize tournaments), but it is confrontational (people, however insane I might find this myself, play the game in non-cooperative multiplayer with internet randos) and so degenerate gameplay is a problem that needs fixing.

Yes, but not all blowups are necessarily degenerate, e.g. 100% envoy travel time reduction can be strong, but it is already limited by the design of instant diplomacy.

 

[Revshawn]

All I want is to be able to defend my colonies from Indian tribes and not be forced to watch them die for no reason.

 

[grotaclas]

All I want is to be able to defend my colonies from Indian tribes and not be forced to watch them die for no reason.

You can do that by enforcing peace on the attacker

 

[grommile]

You can do that by enforcing peace on the attacker

There are cases where you can't.

Most notably, if you obtained the province that became your CN's fifth by conquest, the natives can turn around on the spot and invade your CN, and you can't do jack, because you can't use Enforce Peace on someone you have a truce with, but the natives don't have a truce with your newly spawned CN.

 

[grotaclas]

Most notably, if you obtained the province that became your CN's fifth by conquest, the natives can turn around on the spot and invade your CN, and you can't do jack, because you can't use Enforce Peace on someone you have a truce with, but the natives don't have a truce with your newly spawned CN.

You can enforce peace on countries with whom you have a truce, if that country attacked your subject

 

[GammWlf]

1.34. If you mean them attacking Colonial Nations all the time.

This is just one of the many problems that Native Councils have.

Nerf North American tribes please

There is little more to say. Please nerf North American Tribes. ;) EDIT: I understand that this is an extreme case, but yeah - this is the general trend. Colonial Nations fail. So. Bad. o_O

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[subzero12479]

You can do that by enforcing peace on the attacker

Not if you are in a regency.

 

[grommile]

Not if you are in a regency.

Ah yes. I had blissfully put to the back of my mind the horrors of playing monarchies without RoM activated

 

[TtheHF]

I could see Force Limit being nerfed, but with the current manpower-heavy battles 50% manpower still feels fine.

Doesn't saying this kinda indicate that it's unbalanced in that it's almost a vital idea group? And don't we want to have ideas balanced so that no idea group is vital?

 

[currylambchop]

You guys understand that most players dont use the forums, let alone post here, right? Furthermore I hope youre not implying that you weigh solutions based on their upvotes in a very small forum.

Most players don't have a problem with the new combat because they don't bother to complain about it on this forum. If you look at community polls on other communities you find they are fine with the combat.

 

[GammWlf]

Most players don't have a problem with the new combat because they don't bother to complain about it on this forum. If you look at community polls on other communities you find they are fine with the combat.

My guess is that most players are indifferent to the changes (especially the ones that aren't active on forums). This doesn't mean the legitimate concerns of a smaller number of players should be ignored.

I've heard claims that it makes the game more accessible (which is obviously a good thing). However, these changes don't just make elements of the game easier to understand, but reduce the skill ceiling. I'm fine with the formula behind battles being tweaked, but what these changes do, in my opinion, makes the game less strategic.

1. By removing morale damage from the backrow, it removes the value of skills such as timing reinforcements.
2. These changes make some modifiers basically worthless. Morale has been substantially nerfed and combat width is basically meaningless.
3. It is now substantially difficult to defeat a foe with superior numbers: quantity ideas are now even more of a necessity than before.
4. Stackwipes being substantially more difficult (though not impossible) mean that you have to chase defeated enemies around the map CK2-style even if it is obvious that another battle will have the same outcome and just wastes both parties' manpower and artificially extends the length of wars.

Obviously a game shouldn't cater to either casual or more die-hard players but "improving accessibility" by removing skills and making it more difficult for the AI or a more skilled player to stackwipe a learner is not improving "accessibility", rather lowering the skill ceiling. You can justify this away by saying "most players don't have a problem". This will just lead to a community of players who either disengage with the game, or splinter off and exclusively play on earlier versions of the game, neither of which are good outcomes for Paradox or the community.

 

[Orange1861]

Removing morale damage from the backrow doesn't really make sense either since historically, the backrow of armies fled when the front row broke.

 

[Dunderscore]

Most players don't have a problem with the new combat because they don't bother to complain about it on this forum. If you look at community polls on other communities you find they are fine with the combat.

lol "the discord im in is indifferent about it, therefore most people like it"