Dev Diary #140 - Legacy of Persia & 1.11 'Peacock' Free Update

[Jia Xu]

Merged Abbasids back into the Hashimid dynasty.

This is a great step forward but what we really need is a Quraysh Dynasty.

 

[Wokeg]

This is a great step forward but what we really need is a Quraysh Dynasty.

A human of taste and culture whose post I shall add to my big collage of Forum Posts With Correct Opinions for use next time the great internal Quraysh vs. Hashimids & Umayyads discussion comes up.

 

[Werther]

If there proves to be sufficient appetite for it, we might add a game rule to revert the survival chances to the original values,

Exactly what I want. Your new player stop playing when his character dies. I stop playing when my characters is 70 with max health, have 40 in every stats and all perks available and I'm bored as hell because he is a god amongst men like his father and the previous 10 generations.

New players are happy now that they have no harm events, why should I not? I spent years and ungodly amount of money in Para games, doesn't mean I don't count

 

[A_Dane]

I was pleasantly surprised by the addition of harm events. Random deaths was one of the main things which made Ck2 much more interesting than Ck3 - sudden successions, civil wars, sometimes rulers dying one after another - those situations create a great story and greatly contribute to interesting, challenging gameplay.

I hoped that it's maybe just a first step in a right direction to revisit difficulty of Ck3 and maybe once again open up a little to the old playerbase instead of designing everything with casuals in mind.

It's sad to see that not only default option was set to no harm to players but also chances of actually getting harmed from the event were lowered.

So, I actually havn't complained about these, but ever since they were introduced, I played on default settings, and it felt completely off. (I felt like every ruler got them, and always died). So in my last 2 playthroughs i decided to keep count. Out of 18 rulers, 16 had harm events - one guy got through without anything negative, rest were incapable or dead. About half were below 50

If anyone has had the same experience as I've had on the default settings, i can full Appreciate why they were unhappy. That is just not fun, and honestly doesnt feel Random.

I'm fully aware it's not statistically significant (hense why I use the Word feel), but it really ruined alot of the fun for me!

 

[Cymsdale]

We've not abandoned the idea of making characters less long-lived or providing more setbacks and player friction, but we (or I, here, I suppose) don't think that harm events are actually such a good way to do that.

Thank you for the explanation.

I didn't have strong opinions on the balance of harm events themselves but definitely got a sense that there was lot of tweaking to do, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to cut them if they don't work as intended. I generally argue for a more demanding play experience (more "friction" as you call it), but I'm definitely not the type to argue that the players face should be smashed into the gravel and rubbed around either.

To me what's important is that the experience is balanced, challenging, transparent and fair. If harm events weren't cutting it, I'm happy to know you are apparently still working on the problem in a different way.

 

[Werther]

So, I actually havn't complained about these, but ever since they were introduced, I played on default settings, and it felt completely off. (I felt like every ruler got them, and always died). So in my last 2 playthroughs i decided to keep count. Out of 18 rulers, 16 had harm events - one guy got through without anything negative, rest were incapable or dead. About half were below 50

If anyone has had the same experience as I've had on the default settings, i can full Appreciate why they were unhappy. That is just not fun, and honestly doesnt feel Random.

I'm fully aware it's not statistically significant (hense why I use the Word feel), but it really ruined alot of the fun for me!

Problem is that before harm events, I made a similar stats but for rulers longevity. Pre T&T, 2 of my 1066-1453 campaigns ended with less than 3 rulers ruling for less than 40 years and I even had campaign with an average age of deth of 70. Didn't feel random or fun neither. At least harm events are different events.and bring something more than boredom.

 

[shkupjani]

Balance​

• Conquest & Invasion CBs now have a dynamic cost scaling with realm size, this should make the CB's cheaper for smaller realms and more expensive for very large ones.

This I like.

 

[OutsiderSubtype]

I like the harm events. Rulers in the Middle Ages did die randomly and stupidly sometimes. Plus it keeps you from totally gaming the succession every generation.

But I think my ideal would be: harm events but nerfed a bit (like in this patch), plus increase chance of dying as a commander, plus really tone down character health modifiers (these are the real problem), plus make some diseases more lethal.

 

[Jia Xu]

We'll continue to look at other ways to address health and longevity issues

Lower general life expectancy by 5 years. Off-set it by increasing the Blood 5 legacy perk life expectancy bonus by an additional 5 years. Life expectancy goes down across the board but players who liked living a bit longer can still take the legacy perk. Painless, clean solution.

 

[Luka031]

This is a great step forward but what we really need is a Quraysh Dynasty.

Ofc a person named Jia Xu has a good feedback

 

[Werther]

Lower general life expectancy by 5 years. Off-set it by increasing the Blood 5 legacy perk life expectancy bonus by an additional 5 years. Life expectancy goes down across the board but players who liked living a bit longer can still take the legacy perk. Painless, clean solution.

Yep but you also need a bit of randomness, because if they all dies at 55 (instead of 60) it doesn't change a lot. This is because I know that harm events are there and can kill me or my first son at any time that I keep two other children 'just in case'. If I know that nothing will happen and they have 98% chance to die at 55, I don't need to do other children or worry. Even player character should suddenly dies at 28.

 

[ACanadian]

Waaaaaaay ahead of you .




Heya folks! Harm events designer & axer here, and I can see we've got some people upset, so I'll give little context on why this was done: harm events weren't actually an intended part of EP2. They weren't an intended part of anything. They were something I made in my own time because there seemed to be a clear dislike from a vocal part of the community (whose size I think I probably overestimated) for ruler longevity, and I thought I had a good way to help start addressing that.

Problem is, though they really worked for certain types of players, it's rapidly become clear that they're a huge net negative for many more. They're materially unpopular with most players, something reflected in a lot of the feedback we've had since Tours & Tournaments launched: I frequently see them described as misguided at best, often lazy or badly designed, sometimes as just a plaster over deeper gameplay problems or as a rush job thrown in with no real care, and worst of all, as a huge source of quit moments for new players. Though I don't really agree with the harsher criticisms, they definitely ended up a markedly larger pain point than the one they were trying to solve, and for many more people.

So they're now adjusted for wider taste odds-wise and disabled for players by default. If folks still want them, they're there, they can be turned back on as easily as they could be turned off before, but they were an idea that just didn't work out how I'd hoped. Sucks but it happens. We've not abandoned the idea of making characters less long-lived or providing more setbacks and player friction, but we (or I, here, I suppose) don't think that harm events are actually such a good way to do that.

We'll continue to look at other ways to address health and longevity issues, and modifier stacking generally, but likely aiming for stuff that's a bit subtler/more broadly applicable. I'm just not expecting to see the list expanded or get the time allocated to make the generic health loss harm events that I'd hoped to get to do at some point.

If there proves to be sufficient appetite for it, we might add a game rule to revert the survival chances to the original values, but if I'm being frank then even within the small minority of people who liked harm events, the vast majority of those seemed to want increased odds too, so I'm afraid that folks who want harsh chances and random death (at least, in this specific way: again we'll be trying other stuff in future, just not this) are in something of a super-minority.

Honestly, I'd personally agree with that assessment of game rule configuration.

Hit a good deal of the nail on the head there, though I will stress that we've also had a lot of complaints from non-newbs too. I suspect that a portion of it comes down to what's realistic not necessarily being immersive and vice versa, as well as immersion varying between player types — sometimes substantially.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of people who liked harm events. I stopped playing CK3 seriously not long after launch mainly because of the longevity issue, but I kept tabs on its development in the hope that it would eventually be fixed, so I am crushed to see that what I thought to be a step in the right direction is now being reversed.

I cannot claim to speak for everyone, but I thought that what I, and many people like me, are saying when we say that the game is too easy is not that there is no challenge to be found in the game, because obviously that's not quite true, but rather that there is often little sense of danger, and I think that a big part of this is the lack of unpredictability. The player is often in complete control of what happens, and this then becomes boring. I don't think that what I really want is for the game to become more difficult, but rather, I would like it to be more unpredictable, to throw wrenches into my plans once in a while. More importantly, it's important to have the feeling that there is the risk of something bad happening. It does not have to always happen, but it's important to have this feeling, because this can push people to make different choices. Right now, it all feels too safe, and once you realize that you never were in any danger, it becomes a bit boring. You get the feeling that nothing interesting happens unless you force it to, and that you can always avoid all difficulty if you so choose.

I don't know if harm events were the right tool to introduce much needed unpredictability, but I think that something should be done about it to retain the interest of players in the long run. Otherwise, every game is on the same predictable upwards trajectory, with the player becoming increasingly powerful without any serious obstacle, after the first few decades. I think that nobody really likes to have a random game over, and I don't think that's what people want. Again, I cannot speak for others, but truly, what I miss is this feeling of risk, which keeps me on the edge of my seat and keeps me thinking about the game even when I'm not at my computer.

I really hope that you find a solution for this that pleases everyone. I think that a lot of people enjoy CK3 as a roleplaying game, and I think that's great, but I also think that roleplaying would be greatly enhanced with more unpredictability. Right now, I feel more like the DM than its player. I have all the control over the story I want to tell, but that's not why I'm playing the game. I'm playing to produce an interesting story, not to act out one I invented in my head.

 

[ACanadian]

Yep but you also need a bit of randomness, because if they all dies at 55 (instead of 60) it doesn't change a lot. This is because I know that harm events are there and can kill me or my first son at any time that I keep two other children 'just in case'. If I know that nothing will happen and they have 98% chance to die at 55, I don't need to do other children or worried. Even player character should suddenly dies at 28.

Yes, exactly this. In addition to harm events, I think there should be a greater variance in death ages in general. It's not only much more interesting gameplay, it's also more realistic.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

As regards harm events, I personally don't mind them, but I do think they were perhaps a tad over-tuned. Also, I think it's important to keep in mind the large number of players who could not stand random harm events, either because they saw it as a lazy way to increase difficulty through player targeting, or because they just absolutely hate any kind of RNG mechanic in a strategy game.

I think that the more interesting change is that now CB costs scale with realm size. This should help slow down late-game snowballing somewhat.

 

[Werther]

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind the large number of players who could not stand random harm events, either because they saw it as a lazy way to increase difficulty through player targeting, or because they just absolutely hate any kind of RNG mechanic in a strategy game.

These players had what they wanted by making it a optional game rule. Why lowering chance for those who liked it?

Gosh, first time in 3 years that I'm disappointed by a dev decision. Normally i don't really care about any debate, but this time they really went for a feature I liked. Just let me have a game rule with the previous chance number and that's it.

Wokeg give, wokeg take away

 

[Diskianterezh]

So they're now adjusted for wider taste odds-wise and disabled for players by default. If folks still want them, they're there, they can be turned back on as easily as they could be turned off before, but they were an idea that just didn't work out how I'd hoped. Sucks but it happens. We've not abandoned the idea of making characters less long-lived or providing more setbacks and player friction, but we (or I, here, I suppose) don't think that harm events are actually such a good way to do that.

Don't be too harsh about your work, harm events did a wonderful job at what they do best : sometime, death makes irruption in your good plans, and there is nothing you can do. They are a really great entropy provider, something that just happen, you did not plan, and you have to manage it. They are *vital* for the health of the game.
On the other hand they were a poor way to "reduce the overall life expectancy", as it might have felt like a sword of Damocles with a hidden timer : everytime the clock ticked, you died.

I would divide it in two mechanics :
- Events that are much less deadly but more frequent, and better integrated into the overall game - something closer to what we had with the diseases in CK2: numerous, not very deadly when well treated, but exerting constant pressure
- Violent and sudden deaths, which keep that healthy entropy of "this happened", but rarer, and less of an impression of "I walked into the room and boom heart attack", but more integrated into the activities: choking at a feast or falling off a horse while hunting, giving the impression that it was the activity itself that killed you, and not the reaper with a hidden timer...

 

[tsr-aph]

Pleasantly surprised to see a greater likelihood of the HRE forming in 867. We'll see how well it works. I'll add my name to the list of people who kinda liked harm events (and will be re-enabling them) Sometimes they felt over-zealous and I get the frustration of being incapable, but I felt like it did add something to the game and made it feel more like a living world.

 

[psjimene]

I like the harm events. Rulers in the Middle Ages did die randomly and stupidly sometimes. Plus it keeps you from totally gaming the succession every generation.

But I think my ideal would be: harm events but nerfed a bit (like in this patch), plus increase chance of dying as a commander, plus really tone down character health modifiers (these are the real problem), plus make some diseases more lethal.

Everyone admire Pope John XXI, who died because the roof of his house collapsed!

 

[theyoungmarcus]

Are secret religions able to pass down generations?

 

[oreopirate]

Hit a good deal of the nail on the head there, though I will stress that we've also had a lot of complaints from non-newbs too. I suspect that a portion of it comes down to what's realistic not necessarily being immersive and vice versa, as well as immersion varying between player types — sometimes substantially.

I'm gonna be honest, I think a lot of those more experienced folks would complain no matter what the team does. Because there is a very vocal bunch on this forum who are pissed that isn't CK2 5.0.

I think you could have accomplished the same by just making harm events not trigger on PC in the first 70 years. That's the most vulnerable time, and my one bad experience with harm events was my first one playing as Alfred the Great who died six months after Aethelred. Leaving me as his 5 year old daughter, and her heir as Aethelred's posthumously born son. Needless to say, I did not survive the Vikings. That would frustrate a new player, hell it frustrated me even. But largely these are necessary to shake things up for the time being.