Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

I HATE random events

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
You're at wrong DP settings, that's all I can say;) I hardly get them like that, so it's either bad luck, or your settings.

Nobles will be pissed off if the king ignored to resolve their feud.

If you get more good events, good for you. The events are meant to keep you in check, I don't know how you can make a game more challenging by removing bad events altogether. And it's not only my opinion.

The bottom line: Events were modified to punish players (and historically at that) at going high serfdom, high aristocracy. Adjust your settings, and you won't have them, so what's the big deal? Not used to them? Don't want a challenge?
 
Hrmf, what is it with this "can't take the heat" attitude? All people are talking about here, are removing random events, and you seem to react very violently to this saying its cheating, you "can't deal with it" etc. Like I said, I get more good events than bad, but i feel some of the events are unbalanced and underdeveloped. An example: I am at +3 stability, and I get teh "end of great feud" event. Now, I have to pay 50 ducats to raise stability one point. Well, I dont need to do that right now, do I? And especially, if im playing a minor, this really sux. Why must I pay some dang nobel if I cant afford it? We need two choices in many of the events!
 
I agree with you on that event, cause I hate it to. But, all other events were reworked by me to make them more tied up to DP settings. Sure, you should get more Nobles related events if you choose to be at high aristocracy and low centralization, move your sliders and you hardly see them. Sure, you might end up with a bad streak, but that's why they are called random;)

As for cheating or not, remove only the good ones, and I won't call it cheating :D
 
I didn't say remove the random events, or just remove the bad ones. All I'm saying is that some of the consequences, in an effort to balance good and bad effects, are unrealistic. Like the end of the feud...the event states that a family feud :rolleyes: has been resolved, it's not asking for help from the king...that's another event that does that. If the feud is resolved, great, but why should I have to do anything after that? Maybe even make the choices A. to pay the money and get stab gain or B. don't pay and do nothing for stab. To lose stability just makes no sense.

Same with the peasant revolts...it doesn't make sense for every provinces in a widespread empire to be pissed at the nobles. Same with a lot of the events...it'll say something about an event that should be localised, but then you get revolt risk across your whole empire. And sometimes, it's not insignificant revolt risk...a +6 for 5 years, plus -1 or -2 stab, that's rough, and, IMO, unrealistic in a lot of the events depicted.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the challenge. Even playing Byzantium against a Furious AI, it's still pretty easy to be unstoppable by 1820. So adding some challenging events is fine. But endlessly running around putting revolts is just frustrating and doesn't add any fun to the game, really. Necessary at times, yes, but fun? No.
 
i love the bad random events, when your land becomes large it is great to go down to -3 stability and +18 revoltrisk, it makes the game hard and you get the feeling that you aclopiched something when you manage to win a war.

Isnt there anything sweeter then sending a missionary to byzantium, after 20 years it sucsedes, two months later they turns protestant, a few weeks afer that they burn your manufactory to. Massing a huge army to invade france, three days after decleartion of war it defects.

EU can be compared to a fps here, playing eu without random events are like playing fps without attacking enemies.
 
Originally posted by Crook
Again, I said change your settings. And it's +6 for 3 years, not 5. Peasant War supposed to be worse than a regular unrest (which is +3), so I say it's justified.

BTW,playing on furious is a lot easier, since AI becomes suicidal.
Click to expand...

Oh, only +6 for 3 years, yeah, well, nevermind then, what am I complaining about?

Look, I'm not complaining about the difficulty, I'm complaining about the realism. It takes free, educated men to start real, widespread revolts. The Bolshevik revolution wasn't successful because it was being run by uneducated peasants...it was successful because it had the support of the intellectuals. The American Revoluation was the same...it was a fairly free, middle class group that actually got things going. High aristrocacy and high serfdom should mean less revolts, not more. Would there still be random uprisings from injustices? Yes, of course. But to have a "Peasant War" that lasts a number of years and is fairly serious (+6 revolt risk) and is widespread (over your whole country), requires circumstances that high serfdom and high aristocracy wouldn't allow.

I agree there needs to be some kind of balance in there, but lets make them realistic. Give other bonuses to low serfdom and low aristocracy, or other, realistic negatives to high serfdom and aristocracy.
 
Originally posted by Crook


Why???

There is no way to have only part of your country affected, since province_revoltrisk lasts forever. Would you rather have a +6 for 4 province that can last 50 years, or +6 for the whole country, and only for 3?
Click to expand...

I just explained why. Poor, uneducated peasants don't start revolutions. High aristoracy means there's no educated, wealthy middle class. High serfdom means there's poor, uneducated peasants out working the fields. Combine those two, and you have very little chance for a real revolution to form, let alone become serious. Serfs, with no middle class to lead them, might revolt now and again, but they don't start revolutions. Geez, havn't you read 1984?

As for the revolt risk lasting forever, in theory, I see what you're saying. In game, though, I've seen several of my provinces with +3 or whatever revoltrisk from "event effects" and one without that +3. Maybe it was a bug, I don't know, I just know that I saw it. But I'm not a code junkie, so I'm not going to pretend I know anything about it. Anyway, I said maybe give other advantages or disadvantages to where you have your DP sliders, so even if you can't make the revolt risk work out perfectly, there can be other ways to do it.
 
I just explained why. Poor, uneducated peasants don't start revolutions. High aristoracy means there's no educated, wealthy middle class. High serfdom means there's poor, uneducated peasants out working the fields. Combine those two, and you have very little chance for a real revolution to form, let alone become serious. Serfs, with no middle class to lead them, might revolt now and again, but they don't start revolutions. Geez, havn't you read 1984?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about revolutions, but a Peasant uprising that causes revolts everywhere, and surely you don't need middle class to lead those, Pugachev wasn't exactly an intellectual, was he?
 
Originally posted by Galleblære
I do however think some "negative" events need to be fixed, ie "end of great feud, where you have to pay 50-75 ducats, and if you are a minor, you then have to take an automatic loan that ruins your economy.
Click to expand...

What about changing the amount to a percentage, say 10 % of your current treasury or perhaps 10 % of your yearly income. I don't know if this can be scripted, but it wouldn't cripple minors anymore, and hit the majors with lots of gold harder.

Just a suggestion.

- Asger
 
Some events really kills your stab. "Nobles demands old rights" for example is exaggerated. -4 stab of you don't wat to go back to som tribal society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back