CK3 is too easy

[Benismann]

I'm very worried that this implementation of hard modes means they're "done" with answering to the complains, and this is why i was against it (among the fact that giving free bonus to AI is not great at all)

From what trinexx said on the official discord it seems like this was a quick-and-dirty solution that is to be tweaked and improved with player feedback, so they're definitely not done with the difficulties themselves. And i sure hope they aren't counting it as a real solution....

 

[EmperorDweeb]

One Proud Bavarian response to Dev Diary and difficulty

 

[okawfj]

I hope they create a game structure where each element feels connected rather than simply being obscured by numbers, where the individual parts are simple yet complex and profound, and where it is easy to understand but also becomes difficult.

 

[Magil]

One Proud Bavarian response to Dev Diary and difficulty

I find the results of the poll OPB put up alongside the video rather telling; the majority (by a good margin) say they don't care about difficulty in CK3.

Maybe Paradox could make the game harder. But objectively, the bulk of their resources are likely better spent elsewhere.

I know that doesn't fit the narrative, and hell, I wouldn't mind more of a challenge from time to time, I think it'd be great especially to have more internal turmoil and conflict. That just doesn't seem to be where the community, as a whole, is at right now, and yeah I admit it's not the highest priority for me either.

 

[Benismann]

I find the results of the poll OPB put up alongside the video rather telling; the majority (by a good margin) say they don't care about difficulty in CK3.

Maybe Paradox could make the game harder. But objectively, the bulk of their resources are likely better spent elsewhere.

I know that doesn't fit the narrative, and hell, I wouldn't mind more of a challenge from time to time, I think it'd be great especially to have more internal turmoil and conflict. That just doesn't seem to be where the community, as a whole, is at right now, and yeah I admit it's not the highest priority for me either.

As of writing this response. 56% dont care. 36% say it's too easy. only 8% say no.
Sure the majority doesnt care, but there's still a big group of those who DO care, and out of those the majority says its too easy.

 

[Voidian]

One Proud Bavarian response to Dev Diary and difficulty

I don't disagree with anything he's saying.

But I'd still take a poor solution over no solution.

 

[EricArthur]

I don't disagree with anything he's saying.

But I'd still take a poor solution over no solution.

I, on the other hand, am completely opposed to it.

This isn't a solution. This is duct taping things together instead of working on an immersive AI.

The game isn't too easy because players minmax everything keeping the wiki open in a separate tab; it is because the AI does not utilise the systems the player is specifically (and clearly, I will always defend the AI) told to use.

 

[Voidian]

I, on the other hand, am completely opposed to it.

This isn't a solution. This is duct taping things together instead of working on an immersive AI.

The game isn't too easy because players minmax everything keeping the wiki open in a separate tab; it is because the AI does not utilise the systems the player is specifically (and clearly, I will always defend the AI) told to use.

Again, I agree with everything you're saying.

But today still beats yesterday.
Besides, it's the first step, everyone seems to be missing a HUGE part of the patch, they just reduced all spacemarine prowess by half(!)

Update 1.16.2.1 Changelog

​

Game Balance​

• Reduced the damage per prowess that knights get to 50, down from 100.

 

[GhostDanny]

I, on the other hand, am completely opposed to it.

This isn't a solution. This is duct taping things together instead of working on an immersive AI.

The game isn't too easy because players minmax everything keeping the wiki open in a separate tab; it is because the AI does not utilise the systems the player is specifically (and clearly, I will always defend the AI) told to use.

I mean, in real life a ruler needed to have some approval of their powerful vassals.
Any ruler who completely disregarded their vassals in decision making, soon found themselves deposed.

 

[BladeRunner2250]

I find the results of the poll OPB put up alongside the video rather telling; the majority (by a good margin) say they don't care about difficulty in CK3.

Maybe Paradox could make the game harder. But objectively, the bulk of their resources are likely better spent elsewhere.

I know that doesn't fit the narrative, and hell, I wouldn't mind more of a challenge from time to time, I think it'd be great especially to have more internal turmoil and conflict. That just doesn't seem to be where the community, as a whole, is at right now, and yeah I admit it's not the highest priority for me either.

Pretty clear to me that the dev team are looking at their internal data telling them that players do not want to be challenged and that this has informed all the changes they have made to the game. Other game devs have been pretty open about this recently. Sadly.

 

[Emperor 1997]

I mean, in real life a ruler needed to have some approval of their powerful vassals.
Any ruler who completely disregarded their vassals in decision making, soon found themselves deposed.

Yes, but in Real Life, this Vassals have had the Power, where this is not the case in CK3, because the AI does not know how to build a Holding correctly, they still build Military Buildings in Cities or Temples and build Economy Buildings in Castles.
Castles are for Levies and Men-at-Arms, Cities and Temples are for Money.

They also prefer to build more than 1 City or Temple in Counties, secondary Baronies, should be Castles, because it boost the Defence of the County massively, because Enemies have to siege down every Castle, before they can move on without losing Troops.

And this brings us, to the very terrible Military AI, which is now even incapable of using Men-at-Arms with Siege Progress, looking at you Ballistrai, they now prefer Levies or Siege Men-at-Arms to siege a Holding, ignoring any other Men-at-Arms with Siege Progress.


The AI in CK3, don't even push for Claims they have, even they have the Money and the Army to do so.

 

[PDX-Trinexx]

Pretty clear to me that the dev team are looking at their internal data telling them that players do not want to be challenged and that this has informed all the changes they have made to the game. Other game devs have been pretty open about this recently. Sadly.

What players say and what they actually do can deviate wildly at times, yes, but it's not the sole driver of how we make decisions as that data can be incredibly misleading without putting it into the context of what our core players are saying.

My own stance is that appealing to our core audience is necessary for long-term success, since they're the ones driving word of mouth about our game and the ones who keep us going during rough times; it's a minority of the greater player base, but it's one you ignore at your own peril. That focus on the core community is what brought us to the forefront, and it's what separates Paradox from other publishers.

Talk is cheap though; hold me to task if you feel like we haven't held to that in a year.

 

[Benismann]

Cities and Temples are for Money.

You only get like 30-50% off them + getting more than like 3 buildings that actually benefit the stationed MAA (it's not worth building military buildings for levies) is quite rare and i wouldnt even try making AI stack those and then somehow have if figure out to hold a balanced set of castles to both have ones to station troops at and have ones to get money from.
The building weights are wacky i'll give you that. And AI just in general doesnt build nearly as much as it should, even on hard modes where it might as well just have infinite money.

They also prefer to build more than 1 City or Temple in Counties, secondary Baronies, should be Castles, because it boost the Defence of the County massively, because Enemies have to siege down every Castle, before they can move on without losing Troops.

Also building cities is actually more optimal, you never want to hold secondary castles and cities give you more money and more dev. Ideally you also dont want to sit on defence either and imo the x25ish weight to fortifications does a good enough job at making AIs land not-too-easy-to-siege. What makes them easy to siege is the awful army AI has and the way it uses it.

 

[GhostDanny]

Yes, but in Real Life, this Vassals have had the Power, where this is not the case in CK3, because the AI does not know how to build a Holding correctly, they still build Military Buildings in Cities or Temples and build Economy Buildings in Castles.
Castles are for Levies and Men-at-Arms, Cities and Temples are for Money.

They also prefer to build more than 1 City or Temple in Counties, secondary Baronies, should be Castles, because it boost the Defence of the County massively, because Enemies have to siege down every Castle, before they can move on without losing Troops.

And this brings us, to the very terrible Military AI, which is now even incapable of using Men-at-Arms with Siege Progress, looking at you Ballistrai, they now prefer Levies or Siege Men-at-Arms to siege a Holding, ignoring any other Men-at-Arms with Siege Progress.


The AI in CK3, don't even push for Claims they have, even they have the Money and the Army to do so.

The only reason I build a secondary castle in a single county is if I need that terrain to allow me to build a terrain specific military building for a stationed MaA.
Otherwise it's one castle, one temple (because the game demands it) and the rest cities.

 

[EricArthur]

What players say and what they actually do can deviate wildly at times, yes, but it's not the sole driver of how we make decisions as that data can be incredibly misleading without putting it into the context of what our core players are saying.

My own stance is that appealing to our core audience is necessary for long-term success, since they're the ones driving word of mouth about our game and the ones who keep us going during rough times; it's a minority of the greater player base, but it's one you ignore at your own peril. That focus on the core community is what brought us to the forefront, and it's what separates Paradox from other publishers.

Talk is cheap though; hold me to task if you feel like we haven't held to that in a year.

Absolutely insulting.

Hold you to task if you haven't held to that in a year? Only now? Only then? Six years after launch?

There is a sixty page thread out there with suggestions and criticism that you haven't addressed filled with dedicated PDX players, just saying.

Word of mouth? I've been telling people to avoid this game for a while now and I'm not the only one.

Come on...