Different versions for different playstyles. 22 years of sandboxing is enough; time for something more competitive.
- 8
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I see. So you’ve finished with enjoying a sandbox game, and instead of going and finding a different game you’re advocating to ruin the one you previously enjoyed.
- 1
Ruin?...the whole idea is to have expand the market by having a version tailored to sandboxy play for sandboxy players, and another that plays more competitively. Some may like, and deeper still, purchase, both.
Oh, okay. I explicitly said I don’t really care about the “split the games” idea, it’s plainly foolish. I was talking about your score and tie-AI-behaviour-to-score idea.
This has nothing on TAG magic. At least any nation holding the land can meet the requirements and make the monument. For TAG magic, you have to TAG switch, if it's possible after doing so. This includes both missions and NIs. The latter have been a thing since EU 4 release, but that doesn't make their determinism any less egregious. You can have a top naval NI set on a nation that hasn't bordered coastline since it unlocked its first one.
Not an accurate summary of reality. Not if you go by patch notes. Not if you go by what the top WC players have said wrt various peace mechanics. To the point where it's not obvious from where you're getting this, if anywhere.
Generally, when complaints happen, it isn't because interesting choices during peace time were added (most of those which were added are still in the game now). Instead, they happen when the expansion game/tradeoffs are made arbitrarily worse. Frequently, players arguing against expansion in EU 4 don't fully understand the tradeoffs the game already has, to the point of suggesting EU 4 adds things that already exist lol.
Calling these "peace time" mechanics is a stretch anyway.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
I mean stellaris has score. They are useless and nobody really cares outside of competitive MP and even then you have to substract a bunch of things. They also don't need that expensive calculation like they would for the EU4 example.
I mean wasn't the score idea meant to reward non-combat gameplay. Kind of makes it non-compettive then.
- 1
You’re missing that the quoted poster wants to force the AI to pursue score as its primarily goal.
In a scenario/edition where playing for score is the goal, of course. In the sandboxy version the AI should be coded to challenge the player more directly at various difficulty levels ranging from "pushover" to "will give you a fisting at every opportunity".
So now there’s an edition where the AI is coded (and the player is ostensibly expected) to play for score, which you’ve previously suggested should penalise you for “ahistoric choices”, one which is designed to be a sandbox, and one which is designed for world conquest? This is getting to be a lot of different games.
One of the things I don’t understand about this suggestion is its necessity. What problem would it solve? EU has been a great game for sandbox players and WC players in past versions and within EUIV’s lifespan—hence both kinds of players are here on this forum arguing with each other. Why do you think this can no longer be the case and that splitting it into different games would improve things?
- 2
WC is but one way to play in a sandbox. So is acheivement-hounding. The companion edition would be MP in focus, even for cases where only one player can be human. This should help smooth over the tension between MP balance and the sandbox experience.
So which is the arena and which is the historical version? This proposal seems to only get sillier over time.
- 2
Frankly, the thing I dislike most about monuments is that they can be used by anyone who meets the requirements, so they cannot be ignored in strategy.
Even if I'm playing a historical GB run and trying to limit my continental European territory to Gibraltar, the Alhambra Palace in Granada is too powerful to ignore. And there is nothing more unpleasant than a distorted, worm-eaten territory as a result of trying to get only powerful monuments.
- 1
It would certainly make more sense if you could "activate" only a certain number of monuments to be part of your national identity. Or rather a limited number of global effects from them. But the monuments make much more sense than national ideas or missions, and they actually provide some interesting choices. You almost never care about the national ideas of your opponents, but the monuments can provide at least some interesting choices like trying to take away a monument from a specific country even if you can't use it yourself.
A comprehensive balance of National ideas, special government mechanics and monuments similar to what stellaris does with the custodian thing would be quite a good thing for the game !We addressed this in today's DD, but worth repeating it into this thread, which we've been following. The content we present in the DDs is not finished, and sometimes, barely polished. We want to know the community's opinion of the fresh ideas we've got; sometimes it will work, sometimes not, and we use it as one of our quality filters (and one of which Paradox takes much pride in, a close relationship between the game devs and our games' players). Apart from that, we've got other filters for polishing and refining the new content: internal and external QA (the most important!), weekly dev playtime sessions, a Beta Testing program, etc.
That means that the content and numbers showcased in the DDs are not final, that we'll be polishing them until the release, and that we'll keep balancing it after the DLC and 1.35 release.
But that's basically what Tinto is doing. They're not revising the map, they don't add new mechanics. They balance what's already there and add new options like idea groups and governments and estates and events, but they do not fundamentally change the game the way expansions before Leviathan did.
- 1