The reality of losing.

[funnyfritz]

There is one thing that this game would really need AND every grand strategy Paradox game lacks until now: a disgregation mechanics. Or, at the veary least, the viable option for the player to concede something in the short term.
Every single Paradox game is developed in a linear progression, in which the player consistently becomes stronger. EU IV had the golden age system that curbed the huge human power by boosting all nations in different times, creating situations in which one was at the very least challenged in his actions. But I think it should go further. I think that the general gameplay should embrace the idea that the player, representing a nation acquiring its state identity and/or imperial ambition may have easier and harder times, that not all gains are eternal and yet it may still be funny. Maybe having easier cooldowns to try to get back lost territories or to being able to give lighter concessions to avoid heavier demands by a more furious AI. In addition, the possibility to benefit from vast and quickly conquered territories (maybe by stealing development like in EUIV) before losing them thanks to a reduced cost for them by nearby powers in peace demands.

 

[pheonicia]

The reality of losing is that most players would rather just reload or restart than take any loss. People want to struggle in order to win, but still want to win. Winning without a struggle is boring and losing under any circumstance feels like a waste of time.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

The reality of losing is that most players would rather just reload or restart than take any loss. People want to struggle in order to win, but still want to win. Winning without a struggle is boring and losing under any circumstance feels like a waste of time.

That's a problem with game design, though. The problem with EU4 is the feedback loop of winning and losing, where it is exceedingly rare that a country that has a good start will fall apart, and a bad start will recover. Like, how many times in EU4 does Russia not even form because, say, the Swedes push their shit in?

EU4 sometimes plays more like a game of risk at the end of the day.

If we had mechanics that tied losing wars into the gameplay loop and made it narratively compelling, and allowed for a more dynamic diplomatic system (countries allying against the most powerful country in the region to maintain balance of powers) then I think we would see a change of player behavior.

 

[pheonicia]

That's a problem with game design, though. The problem with EU4 is the feedback loop of winning and losing, where it is exceedingly rare that a country that has a good start will fall apart, and a bad start will recover. Like, how many times in EU4 does Russia not even form because, say, the Swedes push their shit in?

EU4 sometimes plays more like a game of risk at the end of the day.

If we had mechanics that tied losing wars into the gameplay loop and made it narratively compelling, and allowed for a more dynamic diplomatic system (countries allying against the most powerful country in the region to maintain balance of powers) then I think we would see a change of player behavior.

Sure, but I have yet to see mechanics in any game that make *losing* fun, rather than "put the player on the back foot but they still succeed in the end".

 

[perceval350]

The reality of losing is that most players would rather just reload or restart than take any loss. People want to struggle in order to win, but still want to win. Winning without a struggle is boring and losing under any circumstance feels like a waste of time.

Hard disagree, even though CK3 has the problem of being waaay too easy, my experience with it is that the more things are going badly, the funnier the game is

 

[MasterPaw]

Johan said that with the early challenges like the Plague, one goal is to adress that, to teach the player that losing is ok and part of the run

Hopefully it works but I guess players are gonna want their "optimal" run and reload anyway after something they think they could have done way better

 

[pheonicia]

Hard disagree, even though CK3 has the problem of being waaay too easy, my experience with it is that the more things are going badly, the funnier the game is

"Things going wrong" and "losing the game" are two different things. In CK2 and 3, losing your titles and being reduced to a count is a minor inconvenience, but having your dynasty wiped out is losing the game. People find the first fun, not the second.

 

[perceval350]

"Things going wrong" and "losing the game" are two different things. In CK2 and 3, losing your titles and being reduced to a count is a minor inconvenience, but having your dynasty wiped out is losing the game. People find the first fun, not the second.

Well here we're talking about setbacks, not being fullannexed. In ck when you have big setbacks, it's not the fact that it's minor that makes it fun, i feel like the more you have to fight to get back to your position of power, the funnier it is
In pc the equivalent of losing your titles in ck would be to loose a big chunk of your territoires or to lose authority over all or some of your vassals

 

[pheonicia]

Well here we're talking about setbacks, not being fullannexed. In ck when you have big setbacks, it's not the fact that it's minor that makes it fun, i feel like the more you have to fight to get back to your position of power, the funnier it is
In pc the equivalent of losing your titles in ck would be to loose a big chunk of your territoires or to lose authority over all or some of your vassals

People do not treat losing land in EU games and losing titles in CK games the same. Because, frankly, they're not at all the same.

Losing land in an EU game is the start of what is usually a very negative spiral, where now that you're weaker, more nations want to take chunks out of you, and you don't recover fast enough to defend yourself (even with the insane revanchism bonuses in eu4). In CK, losing your titles means being safer, and *less* of a target without the threat of whomever just beat you up coming back as soon as the truce ends to finish the job.

 

[Kipsta]

I often think about such systems and how to make them fun. Ultimately you'd have to change the game concept itself to make it work. Like people should strive towards a score and maybe for some periods your goal reverses from "winning" to "losing" to increase your score. Imagine you could have the chance of increasing or diminishing a point multiplier if you choose to comply with certain absurd demands such as taking on a way stronger opponent that is bound to beat you. You are now managing a graceful lose, but still increasing your final result more than if you were to just continue on your way and had your points multiplier diminished for not taking on the challenge (theses challenges really need to be sure to make you "lose").

It's bad to take player agency if they just want to keep winning all the time, but to get the really good scores at the end of the game it should absolutely be necessary to engage with such a system that demands you to act "irrationally", "go overboard" or "suffer catastrophe" and manage the consequences. Maybe as a mod in the future.

 

[H.A.S.E.V.I.R.]

Well this iteration just might have a Pyrrhus option in it. You win but are defeated because you won at a price of peasants too high to survive or thrive.

 

[A Pink Duck]

Sure, but I have yet to see mechanics in any game that make *losing* fun, rather than "put the player on the back foot but they still succeed in the end".

Rogue-likes get close. The goal is clearly to reach whatever "win state" the game has, but the act of playing is generally compelling enough that you don't mind when you have to restart. Furthermore, restarting is generally a core mechanic so it's expected and often lets you get some sort of permanent modifier.

The problem with applying that to PDX games is that single playthroughs can take a dozen+ hours. Most people (myself included) are much less tolerant of getting a game over after that long of a time commitment. Most rogue-likes have more brief runs. Losing after 30 minutes is much more palatable than losing after 8 hours.

 

[funnyfritz]

Seems to be a little misunderstanding: I apologize if I wasn’t clear, I was not proposing that people should accept a game over (though it would be still funny) but I was hoping that the game would eventually implement a non-linear progression in the gameplay. The game should prospect clearly to the player the possibility of losing wars, territories etc., some of which may “never” return, especially if they were acquired in great amounts too quickly. Empires crumble, in History, but as the game moves towards the modern states smaller and more cohesive pieces of lands may be better suited to encumbered empires.

 

[Gurtannon]

The reality of losing is that most players would rather just reload or restart than take any loss. People want to struggle in order to win, but still want to win. Winning without a struggle is boring and losing under any circumstance feels like a waste of time.

FPS games or any online competition games wouldnt be popular if people only played if they win which is impossible

If they make AI actually smart and make him play the game well, losing would be a more casual part of the game

 

[perceval350]

People do not treat losing land in EU games and losing titles in CK games the same. Because, frankly, they're not at all the same.

Losing land in an EU game is the start of what is usually a very negative spiral, where now that you're weaker, more nations want to take chunks out of you, and you don't recover fast enough to defend yourself (even with the insane revanchism bonuses in eu4). In CK, losing your titles means being safer, and *less* of a target without the threat of whomever just beat you up coming back as soon as the truce ends to finish the job.

Being full annexed in EU4 is an extremely rare experience and I really don't think players restart the campaign each time they experience a defeat because they're afraid of ending up full annexed. I think most players view defeat in EU4 only as a waste of time. In EU4 you achieve goals only by conquering and conquest is almost the only actual game loop, so if you lose lands why go through the tedium of just conquering it back when all you're going to do during your campaign is conquest.
In CK3 when you lose lands/titles it's absolutely not as bad because you have several options to take back what's yours (war, diplomacy, intrigue...) so it's more fun and random to try to go back to your initial position, and you have to deal with your internal situation all the time which means that conquest is not the main game loop
This why i'm much more optimistic whith PC's capacity to be fun even when losing

 

[pheonicia]

FPS games or any online competition games wouldnt be popular if people only played if they win which is impossible

If they make AI actually smart and make him play the game well, losing would be a more casual part of the game

Online games usually take less than 10 minutes for a round, and I can personally assure you that it still sucks when you lose. I mean, why else would they be some of the most toxic online communities imaginable?

 

[Gurtannon]

Online games usually take less than 10 minutes for a round, and I can personally assure you that it still sucks when you lose. I mean, why else would they be some of the most toxic online communities imaginable?

Hoi4 multiplayers takes hours, and it is not always win, yeah losing sucks what I meant if it becames a casual part of game (like dark souls), it no longer prevents people from abondoning the game (except for small breaks), also winning would be more valuable, like we could start seeing forming HRE as a success instead of conquering world before age of absolutism lol

Even making your nation stand until the end date should be considered a success as it was in history

WC should be impossible (even for crazy players)

No one managed to do wc in history, so no player should have that amount of skill to do it

 

[pheonicia]

Hoi4 multiplayers takes hours, and it is not always win, yeah losing sucks what I meant if it becames a casual part of game (like dark souls), it no longer prevents people from abondoning the game (except for small breaks), also winning would be more valuable, like we could start seeing forming HRE as a success instead of conquering world before age of absolutism lol

Even making your nation stand until the end date should be considered a success as it was in history

WC should be impossible (even for crazy players)

No one managed to do wc in history, so no player should have that amount of skill to do it

That is not how most video game players engage with games.

 

[Gurtannon]

That is not how most video game players engage with games.

How they engage then?

For me, It depends on the genre and PC is taking a simulationist approach regarding history

So a true history simulation should emphasize losing as much as winning in the gameplay loop

 

[pheonicia]

How they engage then?

For me, It depends on the genre and PC is taking a simulationist approach regarding history

So a true history simulation should emphasize losing as much as winning in the gameplay loop

Most who people pay games like seeing the number go up.