Are DP requirements for events documented?

[AlanC9]

And if not, should they be?

I started thinking about this when I didn't get the Lend-Lease chain as the US (interventionism too low). It never occurred to me to raise interventionism.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is in the manual or not. But putting in every requirement like this leads to 20/20 foresight and I'm not sure we want to encourage that.

mm

 

[unmerged(53093)]

I'm not sure if this is in the manual or not. But putting in every requirement like this leads to 20/20 foresight and I'm not sure we want to encourage that.

Isn't that kind of thinking the same thing that keeps Microsoft from releasing their source code? The implication is: we want you to use our product, but we don't want you to know how or why it works. CORE isn't an iPhone. You can give us the option to understand how it works (and even enable us to improve it to suit our tastes), without ruining the game for those who want to be surprised. Putting the information out there doesn't FORCE anyone to read it, but it sure does make it convenient for those of us who might want to. Either way, it is always nice for consumers to have options and choices, rather than having others make the choice for us. Let us decide what is good for us. We're adults.

You don't "want to encourage that"? How patronizing can you get?

 

[unmerged(17767)]

That's just plain rude and uncalled for. These guys do a great job, do it for free and don't deserve remarks like that. IMO he wasn't being patronizing at all but simply giving you the rational that he, as a CORE developer, has.

 

[unmerged(53093)]

That's just plain rude and uncalled for. These guys do a great job, do it for free and don't deserve remarks like that. IMO he wasn't being patronizing at all but simply giving you the rational that he, as a CORE developer, has.

They do a great job. That's true. But does that make them immune to criticism? It would be fair for you to say that you disagree with my criticism and say why, but it is not fair for you to say that I should not be allowed to express my opinion at all just because they do a good job and do it for free.

I understand that he was giving his rationale for his view on the matter, but the fact is that it is a patronizing position because it treats us consumers as if we are children who need to be told what is good for us and kept from understanding too much.

And that is just the opinion that I, as a CORE consumer, have.

 

[unmerged(17767)]

Of course you're welcome to your opinion, we all are, but there are ways to express it without being rude. Actually I pretty much agree with your opinion just not the manner in which it was stated.

Personally I'd like to have as much info as possible because I'm constantly tweaking and modding my own games. For example it's my opinion the when Hungary is approached by Germany about dividing the remnants of Czechoslovakia and forming an alliance, that should have at least an 80% yes chance. I think Hungary would be nuts to turn that down. The dev's don't think so so they make it an 80% (I think it's 80% anyway) chance of saying no but that's ok. I went in and changed it myself.

Back to your point though I really don't think he was trying to be patronizing although I can see why you might take it that way. I just didn't read it the same way as you did I guess.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I certainly didn't mean it in a patronizing way. But IMO documenting exact settings required to activate events is not necessarilly a good thing. This tends to encourage gamey play styles, where a formula is applied, rather than having a strategy employed. There is somewhat of a fine line here, and I do realize it can be frustrating when things don't work quite as you think they should. But we are always happy to answer questions about the design.

I'd add that there is a limit to how much we can practically document. Up until now no one has asked this question. So it really isn't very high on a list of features we need to document.

mm

 

[AlanC9]

It's true that knowing the exact DP requirements would obliterate strategy, but having no guidance at all doesn't exactly lead to using strategy. If an event chain that I think should be happening isn't happening, I have to look at the event files themselves unless someone here clues me in (which is what happened with Lend-Lease)

And then there are event chains that I don't know exist, so I don't know if I'm missing anything or not (unless I've kept track of what happens to the AI when it plays this nation).

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I guess my point is that you should want to move the Intervention slider because you want the general effects of the Slider move, rather than in expectation of any specific future events that you really wouldn't know are coming. To me it seems pretty reasonable that if you can't generate an Alliance or DOW due to lack of Interventionism that providing massive aid to belligerants wouldn't be possible. So in this specific case I don't find the situation to be all that suprising.

Plus, as I mentioned above, where do you draw the line? Considering the number of events we have, documenting all of the requirements just isn't practical.

mm

 

[unmerged(53093)]

Considering the number of events we have, documenting all of the requirements just isn't practical.

Now, that is a really good argument.

This tends to encourage gamey play styles

That is not.

So what if some players want to engage in a gamey play style? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, to paraphrase Jefferson.

It is just telling people (who are already pretty sophisticated game-players, just because we know what CORE is and have installed it) how we should play the game, and then refusing to give us information because we might use that information to play a different way... and I find that to be a patronizing position. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's what it is.

I know that this is a natural mindset for developers to fall into: I don't just want to design my product like this, but I want you to use it this particular way. That is why the iPhone is the way it is. But trying to manipulate end-users like that isn't really reasonable, IMO.

 

[Ghost_dk]

That is not.

So what if some players want to engage in a gamey play style? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, to paraphrase Jefferson.

It is just telling people (who are already pretty sophisticated game-players, just because we know what CORE is and have installed it) how we should play the game, and then refusing to give us information because we might use that information to play a different way... and I find that to be a patronizing position. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's what it is.

I know that this is a natural mindset for developers to fall into: I don't just want to design my product like this, but I want you to use it this particular way. That is why the iPhone is the way it is. But trying to manipulate end-users like that isn't really reasonable, IMO.

Actually I would turn it around 180% degree's and ask people who want to play the mod in a gamey way to do the documentation themself rather then expect the developers to do it for them.

The information is all in the files which are open to anyone so go ahead

Of couse if you would rather the developers (myself included) stop all development to get everything that you would like to know documented and delay future releases because of it go ahead and make a poll about it and see if the majority agree's

 

[ShadoWarrior]

Actually I would turn it around 180% degree's and ask people who want to play the mod in a gamey way to do the documentation themself rather then expect the developers to do it for them.

So anyone who doesn't play the game exactly the same way the developers do is "gamey"? That's the most patronizing and holier-than-thou attitude I've ever seen from a group of modders (or game developers). It also goes a long way towards explaining why a mod that has releases only once (or twice) a year still has many glaringly obvious bugs at the time of each release. If the developers/testers all play with a highly similar style they're bound to miss things that us "gamey" players spot immediately.

Of couse if you would rather the developers (myself included) stop all development to get everything that you would like to know documented and delay future releases because of it go ahead and make a poll about it and see if the majority agree's

Considering the glacial pace of CORE releases, an extra few days (or even weeks) would hardly be noticed.

 

[unmerged(53093)]

Actually I would turn it around 180% degree's and ask people who want to play the mod in a gamey way to do the documentation themself rather then expect the developers to do it for them.

Fair enough. I think that is a valid position. But, to be fair, no one ever said that they expect the developers to do it for them, the original poster merely asked if the information he wanted should be in the manual or not.

Of couse if you would rather the developers (myself included) stop all development to get everything that you would like to know documented and delay future releases because of it go ahead and make a poll about it and see if the majority agree's

Again, that is an unfair characterization of the position. No one ever said that. Why do you feel the need to falsely claim that anyone who asks for more information is demanding that you "stop all development"?

As I recall, you guys did manage to produce and publish a manual, and then produce and publish an update to that manual... so it is pretty preposterous for you to claim that putting this kind of information into the manual would "stop all development". Would it really?

And the original poster never said that you had to put the information into the manual today... he merely asked if it could be included at some point in time because he would find it useful. I would think that you guys would like to know what kind of information your customers want. Sad to see that's not the case.

 

[baylox]

I normally don't respond to posts written in these ways, but this is borderline ok, so...

Look, just play the game and try and be a bit smart - if you want to involve yourself with the rest of the world, go with Interventionism. If you want to build up your military then go with Hawk Lobby. That's what those two represent, after all. Trust us to be a bit smart when doing these things and enjoy the game. Play several times and choose differently and see what happens. There is so much in CORE that it can't be documented "without stopping all development", because that's what it amounts to. Something like this would need to be a concentrated effort, or it'll never get finished (and be just a pure waste of time).

We do like to hear ideas of what to include in CORE, but when we say that this isn't a practical thing to do you also have to accept that.

And in all honesty Questman started the bad-mouthing so don't go blaming us for responding in kind. There is a difference in disagreeing and in being a jerk - please understand and learn this. What you give is what you get.

 

[Ghost_dk]

So anyone who doesn't play the game exactly the same way the developers do is "gamey"? That's the most patronizing and holier-than-thou attitude I've ever seen from a group of modders (or game developers). It also goes a long way towards explaining why a mod that has releases only once (or twice) a year still has many glaringly obvious bugs at the time of each release. If the developers/testers all play with a highly similar style they're bound to miss things that us "gamey" players spot immediately.

Acting in full knowledge of what will happen if I do option a or b is what I constitute as gamey wether you like it or not and has NOTHING to do with me being better or holy in any way.

In regards to our test process id say that you clearly dont know the great lenght that our very dedicated group of testers go to analyse and break the things that we implement so you comment is in best case based on lack of knowledge and in worst case downright lacking any kind of respect. I look forward to your application next time we apply for new betatesters.

Considering the glacial pace of CORE releases, an extra few days (or even weeks) would hardly be noticed.

If you can do it in that amount of time we look forward to you posting your results.

Fair enough. I think that is a valid position. But, to be fair, no one ever said that they expect the developers to do it for them, the original poster merely asked if the information he wanted should be in the manual or not..

It is the developer teams position that such information does not belong in the manual.

Again, that is an unfair characterization of the position. No one ever said that. Why do you feel the need to falsely claim that anyone who asks for more information is demanding that you "stop all development"?

It is a fair characterization because that is what it would take to be able to analyze the huge chains of events currently in the mod.

To top it of cataloging event chains are not in any comperable to listing techs and design decisions which is what the current manual does. Events change almost weekly, the overall design choices made by the team do not.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I'd add that the idea that we won't provide the information requested is just plain wrong. While it may not be in the manual, we're certainly happy to explain how anything in the mod is intended to work. This would be a very different issue if we didn't provide ongoing support like we do.

mm

 

[HistoryMan]

For example it's my opinion the when Hungary is approached by Germany about dividing the remnants of Czechoslovakia and forming an alliance, that should have at least an 80% yes chance. I think Hungary would be nuts to turn that down.

Just as a comment here : The reason for this choice is that (whilst I'd tend to agree that it would be good GAME strategy for Hungary to choose to split Czechoslovakia with Germany) it didn't happen historically. As we try to make events go more or less historical most of the time, that is why the most likely option is set to the high %age chance of likely outcome. Typically, the historical choice will be 90% likely to occur - sometimes even higher, occasionally a little bit lower.

I hope that explains why that event (and any other events that may seem odd to people looking at it, game-wise) has the AI chances set up as they are done so.

Tim

 

[baylox]

Hungary ends up being a puppet of Germany if they go along with this, which is why they didn't historically. Becoming a puppet is like half-loosing the game, after all (in my opinion).

 

[AlanC9]

Hi,

I guess my point is that you should want to move the Intervention slider because you want the general effects of the Slider move, rather than in expectation of any specific future events that you really wouldn't know are coming.

Well, the reason I noticed this in the first place is because when playing as the USA I don't want the general effects of the slider move; there's nothing it gives me that I want except for the effect it has on events. Of course, this has nothing to do with your implementation, and everything to do with my own foreknowledge that I'm going to be attacked by Japan.

So as the mod stands now, I'm moving the slider the right way for the wrong reasons; that is, I'm not moving it because I might want to DOW Germany someday (which is too easy in pretty much every HoI2 mod), I'm moving it because I want the Lend-Lease events to fire.

 

[unmerged(17767)]

Just as a comment here : The reason for this choice is that (whilst I'd tend to agree that it would be good GAME strategy for Hungary to choose to split Czechoslovakia with Germany) it didn't happen historically. As we try to make events go more or less historical most of the time, that is why the most likely option is set to the high %age chance of likely outcome. Typically, the historical choice will be 90% likely to occur - sometimes even higher, occasionally a little bit lower.

I hope that explains why that event (and any other events that may seem odd to people looking at it, game-wise) has the AI chances set up as they are done so.

Tim

I didn't realize that Germany actually approached Hungary with this idea prior to setting up the puppet Slovakia and was turned down. I don't think I've read about that before. Now I understand why the event was written the way it was. I was under the impression that it was a "what if" choice.