Dev Diary 11: Stopping The Snowball

[brobman22]

A silencer for mobile artillery believe it or not.

No, really.

Thanks what a time to be alive

 

[Dragatus]

I'm not sure how slowing down snowballing in this way is actually supposed to help the game. It just sounds like a speed limit that will increase the amount of time where I sit on my hands doing nothing. Spending so much time being idle, having nothing (or next to nothing) to do in my own realm is basically the entire reason why I tend to conquer whenever I can anyway, so yeah.

Now, I'll still wait and see what the DLC and the rest of the patch brings, but this change on its own sounds as though it would just slow the pace of the game with nothing to fill the added downtime.

I have the same concern. Right now at the empire level blobbing and map painting is pretty much the one thing you can do to pass the time. If any limitations are placed on it, they need to be accompanied with more peace time gameplay or else the players will just get frustrated and/or bored.

 

[Dracko81]

It does not stop you from declaring war or expanding. It only makes it more difficult.

 

[Cruxador]

How do you know they aren't going to implement more features to stop snowballing?

Maybe they are, but if they were doing a good job of it, there would be no reason to add infamy.

1: this isn't eu4 and while I get that coalitions are transplanted from eu4 both games work differently from each other and I hope the same for infamy.
2: What if infamy is what makes the other mechanic good or uses it to balance the other mechanic they might introduce in the actual dlc.
4: Maybe we should all just wait before we start passing judgement on a mechanic we really don't have much info on other than one DD and while I do have some ideas of how this could end up badly im going to wait for more information before I decide whether or not this is a bad idea but that doesn't mean im against speculation on how this could end up.

Bro, they literally already told us how the infamy works. It's in the first post of this thread. Is there possibly more details? Yeah, but that doesn't mean that what they already told us is going to be a lie, and what they've already told us is enough that we're having this discussion over it.

 

[Dragatus]

It does not stop you from declaring war or expanding. It only makes it more difficult.

That's enough to make my point valid. There are going to be situations where without pacts I would have gone to war, but with pacts I won't because it's not going to be worth it.

 

[Dracko81]

That's enough to make my point valid. There are going to be situations where without pacts I would have gone to war, but with pacts I won't because it's not going to be worth it.

It doesn't make your point valid at all. If you want to go to war, you will do it anyway. If taking Iberia as CM gives 300%, then you think a King taking a small chunk is going to cause you a big issue?

If you are at the point of being large enough to take large amounts of land while holding a large realm, then yea you could find attacking other people more difficult.

 

[Audoucet]

It does not stop you from declaring war or expanding. It only makes it more difficult.

"More difficult" is very subjective. Since you have complete mastery of the game, you will maybe find it hard a couple of times, but then you will master it too, which makes the entire feature moot.

 

[brobman22]

Maybe they are, but if they were doing a good job of it, there would be no reason to add infamy.


Bro, they literally already told us how the infamy works. It's in the first post of this thread. Is there possibly more details? Yeah, but that doesn't mean that what they already told us is going to be a lie, and what they've already told us is enough that we're having this discussion over it.

what are you talking about im saying there's no point in saying "ck2 is dead" not that you aren't allowed to speculate be infamy.

 

[Dracko81]

"More difficult" is very subjective. Since you have complete mastery of the game, you will maybe find it hard a couple of times, but then you will master it too, which makes the entire feature moot.

And as I have already said, I don't like the idea. But for someone who doesn't want to argue, you seem to want to argue.

But here is the thing you can't seem to wrap your head around, you haven't played with the mechanic. You and a lot of other people are making wildly strange implications about how it works when evidence clearly shows it does work that way, or that in most cases it won't affect you. Disliking an idea and calling it bad are two separate things, don't talk about things you don't have any idea about or say things that are not true.

Coalitions do not stop you from expanding or declaring war, stop the scare mongering and trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Audoucet]

Coalitions do not stop you from expanding or declaring war, stop the scare mongering and trying to make something out of nothing.

Saying the feature's goal is moot isn't scare mongering. The system isn't made to add difficuly, it's just made to slow the game.

 

[Finnway]

Saying the feature's goal is moot isn't scare mongering. The system isn't made to add difficuly, it's just made to slow the game.

Most mechanics in Paradox games add complexity rather than meaningful difficulty. Infamy may not be an ideal solution. But it does solve a recurring problem with the game: the bigger you are, the faster you grow.

 

[Zolotaya]

Paradox, seriously? If you do not have an actual historian or a Historical Accuracy team in your studio, please hire one.

I think you'd be surprised to find out how research is handled. Perhaps there will be a DD which will go into details (no doubt one which people would criticize) so that ignorance would no longer be an excuse to criticize.

And I'm still not over the fact that you were too lazy to improve AI and instead put a land passage between Italy and Greece.

It is not a question of being lazy. A lot of very smart individuals have worked on the ai and every small improvement is the result of a lot of time, effort and dedication. Saying they were too lazy only makes me think you are an ignorant jerk.

Hopefully this will be the last expansion for CK2. It already has too much and the game slows down even only after 150 years. Plus, I'm tired of starting a game, then stopping for several months because of university, then trying to play again but can't because you released two expansions and now my save game is incompatible...

There is a very simple solution to your issue. Go into the Steam directory where your common directory is located, copy your CK2 folder, make a new directory outside of the Steam root directory and then paste your CK2 folder there. This will allow you to play the "current" release as long as you want. This information has been in the public domain for years and is quite simple to achieve. Good luck in completing your campaign.

 

[Cruxador]

Most mechanics in Paradox games add complexity rather than meaningful difficulty. Infamy may not be an ideal solution. But it does solve a recurring problem with the game: the bigger you are, the faster you grow.

But, that isn't the problem. It's a symptom. The real problem is that expansion becomes easy. That means that the game is robbed of fun as you blob meaninglessly. Making you wait for infamy to wear off in between those periods of blobbing doesn't fix the fun, it just spreads what little there is over a greater period of time.

 

[Checco]

Disagree Vs Agree is 210 vs 179 right now.

Is that enough for the devs to read: "Gosh, the reception for this mechanic has been very bad, we should reconsider"?
If there is a way for the paying customers to affect the game development (short of stopping buying), I'd like to know it.

 

[SayonaraSam]

Disagree Vs Agree is 210 vs 179 right now.

Is that enough for the devs to read: "Gosh, the reception for this mechanic has been very bad, we should reconsider"?
If there is a way for the paying customers to affect the game development (short of stopping buying), I'd like to know it.

Bu.. but vocal minority!

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

i hope atleast this will now mean allied armies will work together properly, instead of walking around like headless chickens. then the crusade mechanic will function halfway decent as well, because currently thats still a huge disaster

 

[Talq]

Disagree Vs Agree is 210 vs 179 right now.

Is that enough for the devs to read: "Gosh, the reception for this mechanic has been very bad, we should reconsider"?
If there is a way for the paying customers to affect the game development (short of stopping buying), I'd like to know it.

Somehow I don't think the paradox devs thought the announcement of a nerf was going to be greeted with bouquets of roses.

 

[Zusk]

Me reading this Developer Diary

Seriously, this doesnt look like a fun addition to the game, especially since culture and religion are stated to only play a 'minor role' in this. In the main post of the dev diary you can see Orthodox christians and Sunni Muslims teaming up against Persia (?)

I understand some people might want this if only for a means to slow down the rapid pace of expansion you have in this game ( The guy conquering the world in 13 years a year ago comes to mind ) but really this isnt the best way to go about it.

Infamy does not 'Stop the Snowball', it just slows it and turns war into a waiting game. You are already introducing expanded alliances in CK2 this patch, why not just replace infamy by giving the AI a higher chance to ally if they share a common enemy that is stronger then themselves?

You are scaring me Paradox.

 

[Agnitio Ex Mach]

Me reading this Developer Diary

Seriously, this doesnt look like a fun addition to the game, especially since culture and religion are stated to only play a 'minor role' in this. In the main post of the dev diary you can see Orthodox christians and Sunni Muslims teaming up against Persia (?)

I understand some people might want this if only for a means to slow down the rapid pace of expansion you have in this game ( The guy conquering the world in 13 years a year ago comes to mind ) but really this isnt the best way to go about it.

Infamy does not 'Stop the Snowball', it just slows it and turns war into a waiting game. You are already introducing expanded alliances in CK2 this patch, why not just replace infamy by giving the AI a higher chance to ally if they share a common enemy that is stronger then themselves?

You are scaring me Paradox.

Wholeheartedly agreed. A guy I've been talking to on TeamSpeak also agrees that these changes are a poor decision to try and balance the game. On the chat, everyone agrees that the problem is the AI not being smart enough, not the player outsmarting it.

 

[Reverend Belial]

Well, there goes the military aspect of CK. Literally all this will achieve is either ensure that any gains you make will be swiftly and unavoidably reversed, make it even more of a waiting game, or both.