EU2 source code released

[Mats_SX]

Personally, I take issue with this idea. Not because it didn't happen, but because it didn't happen with the frequency that justifies it being readily accessible to all nations in every peace (or Diplomatic) action. It would become thoroughly abused, I think, in ahistorical and very 'gamey' ways, especially in MP.

I agree with beregic on this. It was stated as one of the first requests, I think in this thread, as a completely golden MP feature. In MP, people sell and trade provinces all the time. Instead of fake wars messing things up, with RMs, MAs causing stabhits and truces making things messy, a feature to sell provinces would be completely super.

And if it hasn't been said already, such a feature could be made way more dynamic than just province for gold. By including possibilities of provinces, gold, ships, NAPs (in form of a truce? ie stabhit if broken) and/or maps being traded, all in a nice little interface (perhaps like the peace one), would be loveable.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

NAPs?

 

[unmerged(15247)]

NAPs?

non aggresion pacts(with time limits, etc) it's a "new" eu2 terminology as i found out recentlly as well

 

[Garbon]

I've seen lots of complaints about NAPs. Also, I don't really see that a stability hit would improve them...if anything people should be encouraged to break them more often.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I've seen lots of complaints about NAPs. Also, I don't really see that a stability hit would improve them...if anything people should be encouraged to break them more often.

how about you accept the fact that there are more ways to play eu2 without creating unecessary mayhem upon player to player understandings . for what you reffering to ( and "suggesting"),there is "age of empires" and other such oriented games , that do NOT have the COMPLEXITY offered by paradox games

i find rather "odd" this comment coming from an agceep HC member, unless there is some other issue you want to get "at"(such as having the need to disagree for the sake of argument)?

war is always AN option, but not THE option in itself; or otherwise i doubt that we would have the ACTIVE fun base(ACTUAL players) we do so long after its original eu2 release...by that i mean dedicated players, and not just the ones that "drop" by mp games once in a while, or just reffering to postings with an agenda of some sorts.

 

[MattyG]

huh????????????
this addition would ESPECIALLY BE great in mp!
does anyone else disagree???
this is one of the oddest arguments i run across, sorry matty
the "abuse" would enhance greatlly the game play and not annoy veveryone with illogical steps into achiving exact that( as need to cancel ma, etc...i mean if it is already an "arranged" war what benefits or handicaps could this dumb steps bring anyway!?)

just becouse player have a "quick" option, it does not mean they will never fight why would anyone play eu2 otherwise . to "abuse" provincial swaps :rofl:
OFF-TOPIC. i just remembered. what happened to the interegnum MP you were suppose to set-up 1 year ago?????(it's never to late i would say...)


SERIOUSLY now:
what atracts people to mp? i think is mostlly the interactive aspects of using the diplomacy itself in promoting one's belief by various means. anyone would agree that in any mp , the achivement of "balance" creates the best results. i see it as a fight of the minds, and not of actual "chess" board. when is the last time ANYONE( france and ottos included and especially) has won complete dominance over everyone else?( and the game kept beeing alive afterwards). likelly never since low diplomatic "skills" would suerlly have great impacts on any OTHER possible skills. thereafter eu2 is technically a much better version of the "diplomacy" game. everything else are just "flavours",etc. in sp, there are a few extra aspects, first will always be the boredoom part
so ANYTHING that improves players control and especially his/her options would make great additions.

Ahem.

In the MP groups I have played in, house rules forbid players from having faux wars to enable the swap of provinces. To me, this is junk gaming. I don't want to see changes to the game which make it easier to pursue the goals of junk gaming. At least with the current system you are forced to pay more to acheive these fanciful, unrealistic results.

 

[Garbon]

how about you accept the fact that there are more ways to play eu2 without creating unecessary mayhem upon player to player understandings . for what you reffering to ( and "suggesting"),there is "age of empires" and other such oriented games , that do NOT have the COMPLEXITY offered by paradox games

i find rather "odd" this comment coming from an agceep HC member, unless there is some other issue you want to get "at"(such as having the need to disagree for the sake of argument)?

war is always AN option, but not THE option in itself; or otherwise i doubt that we would have the ACTIVE fun base(ACTUAL players) we do so long after its original eu2 release...by that i mean dedicated players, and not just the ones that "drop" by mp games once in a while, or just reffering to postings with an agenda of some sorts.

Huh?

I think that NAPs are silly as they are really nothing more than mutual understandings. A game mechanism isn't really needed for that...and I really can't see why a stab hit would be in order. After all, screwing over one's allies if it helped you out was the rule of the day. Relations were hurt trickery and dishonesty but that largely didn't cause a country to become unstable.

I'm also not sure why you take issue with the idea that I've heard MP players complain about NAPs.

Were you responding to someone else?

 

[BurningEGO]

First of all i must state a thing that has been stuck in my throat for quite a while: why do people speak so much that this or that would be good or bad for multiplayer if they rarely ever play it?

Seriously, there are a lot more experienced people around when it comes to multiplayer.

Provinces swap deals would be great indeed for multiplayer - that is a common thing that happens. Not too uncommon in real life either - i have read of countless agreements between countries - notably USA-English pacts. Of course, in single player buying provinces from the AI should be extremely hard - just like in EU3.

Relations were hurt trickery and dishonesty but that largely didn't cause a country to become unstable.

At this stage of the game, Garbon, you should know that many things EU2 represents werent exactly like they are. Breaking truces didnt make countries unstable either, except for some possible situations, but you always get some massive stability hits when you do it. Military acess is another funny situation.

--------------

Now that i am at it - i would like to say one thing or two that has troubled my mind for a while (and some other people's as well). If this expansion thingy is really going ahead, i would like to remember the AGCEEP members, and the ones involved in the project, that, multiplayer exists. I have to say this, basically because I fear this might be a "mirror" of AGCEEP - which is a mod only designed for single player.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Now that i am at it - i would like to say one thing or two that has troubled my mind for a while (and some other people's as well). If this expansion thingy is really going ahead, i would like to remember the AGCEEP members, and the ones involved in the project, that, multiplayer exists. I have to say this, basically because I fear this might be a "mirror" of AGCEEP - which is a mod only designed for single player.

I can understand but don't worry about this.

EDIT: Remember I already asked which specific options could be interesting for MP. I had this answer:

trading map with AI: yes/no
military access in AI countries: yes/no
no attrition for 100 ships fleets: yes/no

 

[Garbon]

At this stage of the game, Garbon, you should know that many things EU2 represents werent exactly like they are. Breaking truces didnt make countries unstable either, except for some possible situations, but you always get some massive stability hits when you do it. Military acess is another funny situation.

So because there are somethings that do strange things, we should add more?

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Ahem.

In the MP groups I have played in, house rules forbid players from having faux wars to enable the swap of provinces. To me, this is junk gaming. I don't want to see changes to the game which make it easier to pursue the goals of junk gaming. At least with the current system you are forced to pay more to acheive these fanciful, unrealistic results.

sorry but i hve to call you up on this. if make a poll i am sure that such an argument would not even get 10 percents of the total votes. i used to play a lot of mp( back to it recentlly) and i had YET to run against such COMPLAIN .
from your statement it sounds that most(if not all) of present/past and future mp ACTUAL players are doing "junk gaming" . would really love to "meet" you on the batelfield with such a restriction u UPHOLD(your house rules.) i BET that regradless of WHO would win the wars, the mp game itself would be DEAD within a very short period from start:rofl:

mp is A COMMUNITY of "monarchs"( like in real life) and the game REMAINS fun by forming "blocks" and especially BALANCE OF POWER. without that, having backstabbings everywhere, there would be no REASON to actually play eu2 at all. anyone looking for an "rts" will find MUCH BETTER ONES then eu2 will EVER be in such respect...

Huh?

I think that NAPs are silly as they are really nothing more than mutual understandings. A game mechanism isn't really needed for that...and I really can't see why a stab hit would be in order. After all, screwing over one's allies if it helped you out was the rule of the day. Relations were hurt trickery and dishonesty but that largely didn't cause a country to become unstable.

I'm also not sure why you take issue with the idea that I've heard MP players complain about NAPs.

Were you responding to someone else?

all you are saying is that nap's should be illegal :rofl: . buddy nobody stops YOU from breaking NAP but do not expect to have a good international imagine after you are doing so . you miss the point entierlly and you have not answered YET to my previous post, instead you are accusing me of "taking issues".
i will have to call you up as well here and provide names about what you "heard".

personally,on a side note, i am getting fed upp with your agenda of always considering your view of point as beeing universally accepted.( you are a good event creator, even if i do not like your reasoning behind events, but you are using that to always impose your point of view in agceep. i can live with that, but claiming the same in the name of the mp comunity is at least "rude") i will have to take up my buddys conclusions of why i am even BOTHERING posting here(the forum in general). i have a lot of free time at the moment but that does not mean i am making arguments and counter arguments just for THE SAKE OF IT. maybe i do not know, but i have yet to run into ANYONE that enjoys playing the middle easte area in any way. God knows i TRIED. anyway, i better reserve such free time for real life events(politics, etc) and give up "junk posting". period!
peace brother and have a good day.

 

[Garbon]

personally,on a side note, i am getting fed upp with your agenda of always considering your view of point as beeing universally accepted.( you are a good event creator, even if i do not like your reasoning behind events, but you are using that to always impose your point of view in agceep. i can live with that, but claiming the same in the name of the mp comunity is at least "rude") i will have to take my buddys conclusions of reffering to even BOTHER posting here. i have a lot of free time at the moment but that does not mean i am making arguments and counter arguments just for THE SAKE OF IT.period!
have a good day.

Okay...

 

[Garbon]

mp is A COMMUNITY of "monarchs"( like in real life) and the game REMAINS fun by forming "blocks" and especially BALANCE OF POWER. without that, having backstabbings everywhere, there would be no REASON to actually play eu2 at all.

Didn't monarchs of the time period backstab one another?

 

[BurningEGO]

Didn't monarchs of the time period backstab one another?

Garbon - do not make some cases a generality.

EDIT: Remember I already asked which specific options could be interesting for MP. I had this answer:

trading map with AI: yes/no
military access in AI countries: yes/no
no attrition for 100 ships fleets: yes/no

Yes yes i know. But that isnt the only problem. Many things that might be possibly added to single player might have consequences to multiplayer. I was also trying you to alarm of that.

As for specific options, just the other day i had some ideas, but now i cant remember any of them (seems like my mind hasnt been that good lately).

Also i would advise creating a specific thread in the multiplayer forum asking for opinions. Some people i spoke of didnt even knew someone was actually working on a possible expansion for eu2 - and so maybe the reason why few, if (almost) none, of the EU2-mp players actually post in here.

 

[Toio]

IMO the issue with MP games is that there is no direction, every one has their own "house rules" so its a pointless argument to raise on what needs to be done.

I played many MP games, and we always played with extra random events , as an example , a random event that triggers when a state reaches level 11 in the military and is greater than 4 provinces will WAR with a random state (-3). Many a game a human got overrun by the TUR this way.

So, I do not know whats the fuss is about, as I said every group of MP players have different rules.

 

[martmol]

IMO the issue with MP games is that there is no direction, every one has their own "house rules" so its a pointless argument to raise on what needs to be done.

I played many MP games, and we always played with extra random events , as an example , a random event that triggers when a state reaches level 11 in the military and is greater than 4 provinces will WAR with a random state (-3). Many a game a human got overrun by the TUR this way.

So, I do not know whats the fuss is about, as I said every group of MP players have different rules.

ALLMOST all the MP game use the same house rules nowadays...

 

[BurningEGO]

IMO the issue with MP games is that there is no direction, every one has their own "house rules" so its a pointless argument to raise on what needs to be done.

I played many MP games, and we always played with extra random events , as an example , a random event that triggers when a state reaches level 11 in the military and is greater than 4 provinces will WAR with a random state (-3). Many a game a human got overrun by the TUR this way.

So, I do not know whats the fuss is about, as I said every group of MP players have different rules.

Played many multiplayer games? Funny thing - i cant even remember seeing you posting on the multiplayer forums. And even after a quick tour search on the stats pages revealed to me that there were 0 sessions played by Toio.

Of course, you could have played "many" sessions outside the official forums but i wont take these into consideration - because most (important note: i said most, not all) of them are played by newbies, which have a very twisted vision of real multiplayer. Hell, i remember a few games which had pathetic rule sets like "its forbidden to trade in cots you dont own" (making nations like england-spain filthy rich with monopolies over all the place), or where players never engaged in a single human to human war (except for me of course) in the entire game in such games outside the official forums.

That game of yours is just a good example: a game with such event sounds... too diferent - to say at best. Might as well DOW an ally, or a vassal.

And martin is correct - most standart games that take place in the official multiplayer forums use, one way or another, the same set of rules. Of course i wont even bother speaking of games outside these same forums because these games as stated before are usually (again - usually is not all - there are actually some exceptions) run by people who never played a real game and have no sense of balance regarding rules.

 

[Toio]

Played many multiplayer games? Funny thing - i cant even remember seeing you posting on the multiplayer forums. And even after a quick tour search on the stats pages revealed to me that there were 0 sessions played by Toio.

Of course, you could have played "many" sessions outside the official forums

correct, plus its been about 2 years since my last mp game. I find humans too dishonest (integrity) in the sense that friends would always ally with each other and outsiders have miserable games (loose interest)

but i wont take these into consideration - because most (important note: i said most, not all) of them are played by newbies, which have a very twisted vision of real multiplayer. Hell, i remember a few games which had pathetic rule sets like "its forbidden to trade in cots you dont own" (making nations like england-spain filthy rich with monopolies over all the place), or where players never engaged in a single human to human war (except for me of course) in the entire game in such games outside the official forums.

You have realised the problem, why put down peoples opinions on MP when there is no base/rules to work on. I mean standard rules. Imagine if you got the conditions you want for MP. another player will come around and "shit" on us for making these changes.
At least when its historical, something is written and we modders have a guide. What guide do we have for MP ? ..your "house rules", my rules, garbon rules, yoda's rules .........who. Its just unnecessary rubbishing on someone who gave his opinion

That game of yours is just a good example: a game with such event sounds... too diferent - to say at best. Might as well DOW an ally, or a vassal.

we used those rules to backstab other human players who where in alliance with each other, eg, the TUR will attack one, the other human player would wait and then break alliance and DOW the human, Game over.

And martin is correct - most standart games that take place in the official multiplayer forums use, one way or another, the same set of rules. Of course i wont even bother speaking of games outside these same forums because these games as stated before are usually (again - usually is not all - there are actually some exceptions) run by people who never played a real game and have no sense of balance regarding rules.

Then, you needed to place the rules (that you use) here for all to see , so IF another mp forum has queries on why , how and when etc etc, we can avoid more endless barraging of modders who try to help.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

correct, plus its been about 2 years since my last mp game. I find humans too dishonest (integrity) in the sense that friends would always ally with each other and outsiders have miserable games (loose interest)



You have realised the problem, why put down peoples opinions on MP when there is no base/rules to work on. I mean standard rules. Imagine if you got the conditions you want for MP. another player will come around and "shit" on us for making these changes.
At least when its historical, something is written and we modders have a guide. What guide do we have for MP ? ..your "house rules", my rules, garbon rules, yoda's rules .........who. Its just unnecessary rubbishing on someone who gave his opinion



we used those rules to backstab other human players who where in alliance with each other, eg, the TUR will attack one, the other human player would wait and then break alliance and DOW the human, Game over.



Then, you needed to place the rules (that you use) here for all to see , so IF another mp forum has queries on why , how and when etc etc, we can avoid more endless barraging of modders who try to help.

i THINK i played mp's with most of not all "serious" players( as no little kids or trolls). from Peter to Johan ; from Hive to Drake and King Jhon. and i have NEVER run into dumb rules as the one you describe above :rofl: , i have YET to even see such illogical rules on the mp forum. and is funny that this lough comes from someone like me that really dislikes MP RULES in general, that is why i gave up mp for a while actualy( especially regarding the edits part ). yet i see an agenda a mile away in this case( sometimes new players get a "shock" of how DIFFRENT mp is and subjective reasoning gets into the way of remaining objestive). you are right that sometimes friends play with friends, however nothing stops anyone from bringing HIS friends( as i did at the time and took me a while to practice with them first, however was an excelent game in the end).
hopefully this is the last time i post here . i know i said so already and i feel this is a waste of time , BUT yet i still have to do my "duty", regardless of who cares or not, or even BOTHER to read all posts .
just me 2 cents: i have YET to see ANY of the HC members in "action" , just like Johan did when he was bringing the new eu2 betas; maybe that is WHY eu2 has been improved a LOT; because ITS creators were taking a hands-on approach ?. if you do under a diffrent nick(like myself) then it is my mistake in saying i never "seen" you and i apologize. as a matter of fact "toio" sounds quiet familiar even if i can not "place" it atm...or maybe is just the number of your posts that create that impression( since must have seen u on various eu2 forums before i guess...)

as much as i do disagree with too many rules(some make sense and some do not ) please do not forget that having rules helps into SELECTING players based on their STYLE of play and therfore EVERYONE can enjoy eu2 mp as the rules would relate to each one's interpretations of gameplay itself. i do not believe agceep HAS been developed to restrain access to a "select" few or ONLY for sp play. am i wrong? i actually say this becouse agceep itself is not played much in mp and the root of the problem is CLEAR to me now. all has to do with further restrictions of its entretainment value. having an "obsessed" historical mod(wich i DO like personally) it is not clearlly the problem(as i heard from mp players initially). it is the upholding of tight gameplay restrictions and more beeing pruposed apparentlly.

it is funny to note, that after playing agceep in sp for soo long, doing watckboi(wich is basically an extended vanilla mod on a bigger map only) seems too easy (in sp). therfore i take note that agceep is indeed the hardest mod around , more chalanging, etc . wich os GOOD. but would be a great mistake to uphold same rules and EXPECTATIONS when it comes to MP. really. not many play it right now, and after reading propositions like "mattyG"'s and the following comments of the HC member gabron, i am NOT surprised of reasons into discaring agceep from the list. years ago, when the mod was still "young" i kept asking for big mp on it, and the only game i managed to get into( and finally Found one) died quiet earlly on due to people getting irritated from restrictions(forcebreak vassals, ceeding provinces via event, etc).

 

[Mats_SX]

Remember I already asked which specific options could be interesting for MP. I had this answer:

trading map with AI: yes/no
military access in AI countries: yes/no
no attrition for 100 ships fleets: yes/no

Then we need more requests

Priorities are pretty clear to me: Make things that are very common in the forum-based MP (which by being forum-based is also Paradox-supported of sorts) and are also difficult or tedious easier and more hands-on.

My suggestion was described above:

In MP, people sell and trade provinces all the time. Instead of fake wars messing things up, with RMs, MAs causing stabhits and truces making things messy, a feature to sell provinces would be completely super.

And if it hasn't been said already, such a feature could be made way more dynamic than just province for gold. By including possibilities of provinces, gold, ships, NAPs (in form of a truce? ie stabhit if broken) and/or maps being traded, all in a nice little interface (perhaps like the peace one), would be loveable.

That's a dream of mine, and keeping it more simple, with only having gold for provinces or provinces for provinces (and gold) would only that make MP a lot easier and dynamic.


Other things that usually causes problems in MP (at least to my own experience) is alliances and separate peaces. For example a White Peace offer will never show whether it's for alliance or a separate peace. Fixing that would be a solution to lots of "noob traps".
Another is allowing for multiple alliances, keeping vassals safe in one, and still being able to enter an alliance with other humans in human vs human wars.

Sending large sums of money is also common MP conduct. At present, players have to send lots of gifts, spending lots of diplomats (which might be a problem) but more importantly taking up lots of their time. Also gifts are not usually even numbers, which causes minor calculation issues. The other option is loans, but it requires you to have double the amount to give away, and also gives the recipient a -1 stability hit. Neither of these two alternatives are very effective for the purpose.
A feature of simply giving away gold that you have in your treasury would be very helpful. The easiest solution that I can think of is making this a part of above-mentioned sell-of-province feature. By making that feature able to offer "x ducats" for "nothing" as well as other combinations would be so helpful.


And I am sure that there are a lot more ideas out there that just needs to be posted. Making a thread in the MP forum might actually be a good idea.