Modifiers stacking limit game rule.

[Zopyrionis]

Everybody knows that modifiers stacking is the biggest problem of the game in terms of difficulty. Once player understand how to stack modifiers from artifacts, different traits and events, he become a god. Characters can live forever, 20 knights can destroy giant armies, et cetera. Developers already know about this problem (they mentioned in Floor Plan for the Future DD) and tried to fix it with Man-at-Arms in Tours and Tournaments update, but this made Man-at-Arms even more powerful. Many people on this forum suggesting completely nerf most of the modifiers, but here comes the biggest problem of this case. Many players who suggest this simply forget that they mastered the game and didn't realize that it still very difficult for newcomers. And if developers make game much harder, new players will stop buying the game and sales will decline. So, how developers could please the newcomers and experienced players at the same time? The answer is simple - game rule.

Modifiers stacking limit:
1) Default (nothing changes).
2) Enabled, with exception for temporal modifiers. For example, you can get only 30 prowess from lifestyle perks and artifacts, but you can get more with temporal modifiers.
3) Enabled. Even if you have artifacts for 100 prowess, you will never get more than 30.
4) Enabled, with exception for temporal modifiers (Player only).
5) Enabled (Player only).

I know that many people don't like the idea of buffing AI with cheats (like Lucky Nations in EU4), but last two points doesn't seem like cheating for me. AI, probably, will never understand modifiers stacking like player does.

Worth mentioning that modifiers stacking limit already exist in game. For example, you can see this in Diplomacy lifestyle tree (Confidants -5% Stress Gain per Friend (To the Maximum of 5)) or in Adventure Legacy (Tier 5 - +1% Vassal Tax Collection per Friend (max 5)). Also, I understand, that creating such limit for every modifier requires a lot of work and, especially, testing. But, from all other options, this game rules seems like the best solution, that can please min-maxers, role players, newcomers, and very experienced players at the same time.

At last, I want to appreciate creation of negative developing modifier in last update. Plagues, especially Black Death, can throw regions back centuries and this negative modifiers is a great example how game can become more difficult. But, because there is no limit of modifiers, player can easily recover from development decline by collecting temporal modifiers (from holding court events, grand tour, artifacts, courtiers, et cetera). Imagine, how Black Death will look like, if this game rule was enabled. Currently there is only one real threat for the player - accident. He can lose the game in case if his characters will start dying one after all because of disease, his heirs can be from different dynasty, or he can be killed by rivals. This game rule will make mid and late game difficult by itself.

 

[Atalvyr]

In general, this is an issue in many Paradox games, because of the siren song of giving out absolute bonuses/modifiers instead of multiplicative ones.

HOI4 has tried to get away from this to an extent, with many bonuses now functioning like % increases on a base value, instead of adding flat amounts. Vic3 is almost entirely % bonus based, with very few absolute bonuses.

Having MaA be able to stack +200% attack is powerful, but not quite as absurd as before where you could stack +200 raw damage on top of an Archer. More bonuses in CK3 probably need to work this way. A good sword can make help you win a fight, but it should augment your base Prowess, not stack raw Prowess on top. I'm fine with stuff like education and traits adding raw stat values, since they are finite resources and help define a characters strengths/weaknesses, but beyond that most other things should augment these base values, not render them completely irrelevant.

 

[Zopyrionis]

Having MaA be able to stack +200% attack is powerful, but not quite as absurd as before where you could stack +200 raw damage on top of an Archer. More bonuses in CK3 probably need to work this way. A good sword can make help you win a fight, but it should augment your base Prowess, not stack raw Prowess on top. I'm fine with stuff like education and traits adding raw stat values, since they are finite resources and help define a characters strengths/weaknesses, but beyond that most other things should augment these base values, not render them completely irrelevant.

I like your idea about augmentation of base values (Good sword can give +5% for character with awful prowess, but it will give +20% for some Hercules), but for changes like that developers should rebuild almost every aspect of the game and test it. This, surely, will be better solution than suggested game rule, but this will take a lot of time and slow down development of new features. Developers reworked buildings, domain limit, vassals and Man at Arms in Tours and Tournaments update, but this changes almost didn’t change game difficulty, despite truly qualitative changes. Why?

Problem in modifiers stacking. Let’s take new vassal system for example. Now we have multiple categories of vassals and in early game player pays attention to opinions of religious or glorious vassals. But why their opinion become irrelevant in late game? Because experienced player has so many modifiers that give him positive opinion or dread, that he could execute close family members of vassals and they still will love him. Now, let’s imagine situation, where player can get only +60 positive opinion from different modifiers (Note, that I mean modifiers, that not related to relationship with certain vassals: artifacts, level of piety, et cetera. Player definitely should have much more opinion boost with allies, friend, lovers or vassals he sways). With limited general boost for positive opinion player must be much careful with things, that many people simply ignore right now. Player no longer can click some button in event, that give him -30 opinion with certain group of vassals or can’t ignore opinion of powerful vassals. With suggested game rule new vassal system will reveal itself as much deeper level. Same comes with health, Man at Arms, buildings, and other aspects of the game.

I encountered a perfect situation in my recent playthrough that shows how stacking modifiers can save player in apocalyptically difficult situations. I played as Bavandid Zoroastrian successor and controlled all Persia, Arabian Empire, and part of Byzantium lands by 970. Because of some roleplay reasons I decided to betray my Indian allies and start wars for all India. By 995 all India was conquered (by using claimants on kingdoms) and all Indian maharajas accepted conversion to my faith. Right after conquest of last kingdom in India started Black Death and my ruler died from cancer (at the age of 90). His daughter faced with huge financial crisis and giant populistic revolts across all India, which she managed to crush. She successfully recovered from plague and bring economy on previous level in 20 years. All of this I managed to do not because I have strategic mind of Hannibal, but because of modifiers stacking.

My ruler got cancer long before conquest of India, but perfect doctor and multiple artifacts made cancer feels like a common cold. At the start of the conquest of India I have more than -100 aggressive expansion opinion with my vassals, but modifiers covered it. My learning and finances were so significant, that I easily convinced Indian rajas to accept my faith. And after Black Death come, I hired tons of mercenaries to enhance my army and crush the revolts, despite huge negative income. Right after Black Death my new ruler just made Grand Tour in India to increase culture acceptance and none of the Indian rulers rebelled against me. If I have enabled suggested game rule, all of Indian maharajas will join the populist during Black Death (none of them joined populist revolt) and never accepted the conversion. Honestly, I wouldn’t even be able to conquer India, because my old vassal will rebel in fight for freedom, independence, or some claimant (they all hate me). In fact, everything would be even simpler – my rule would simply die of cancer.

I understand that there a lot of other ways to change modifiers stacking and most of them much better than my suggestion. But all of them require colossal work and time for testing, while this game rule seems like the easiest way to increase difficulty and do not scare away unexperienced players.

Some people may say that I can limit myself, but the problem is that game doesn’t give me an option to do that. Sure, I may not use 4 personal health boost artifacts, 2 books for health boost in Throne Room and some other artifacts. This will be stupid from gaming perspective and even from roleplay perspective (Ruler of giant empire doesn’t want to live forever?), but still. Even if I do these, I still get health boosts from feasts, travelling events, traveler, hunter, and archer perk (+ genetic traits and some random modifiers). And this is only health modifiers. What about Man at Arms? I shouldn’t develop my domain and army? What about positive opinion modifier? I shouldn’t go to pilgrimages, host feasts, or even rule long (legendary dynasty get +55 positive opinion for just ruling for a long time). I always restrict myself from save scumming, exploitation of bugs, using game flaws in my advantage (level of fame farm due to title creation or sending unwanted heir in charge of army in the infected lands) and create many roleplay restrictions for specific campaigns. No matter what I do, modifiers stacking will chase me like Black Death chased medieval peasants.

 

[x4077]

In general, this is an issue in many Paradox games, because of the siren song of giving out absolute bonuses/modifiers instead of multiplicative ones.

Do realize that multiplicative modifiers flatten the bell curve of the stats even more than additive ones, due to the fact that they benefit higher base scores more than lower ones. An alternate solution is to have a stacking penalty applied to modifiers, so that the best modifier gets applied at 100%, while the next best modifier might only get applied at 66 or 75% of its value, and so on. That way getting a higher modifier than one already owned is still beneficial, but stacking modifiers past 2-3 of them provides almost no benefit at all for the additional ones. It also means the development staff can more readily control the minimum and maximum stats by the size of the largest modifier value they allow without having to worry about the size of the pool of available modifiers.

You can see that sort of stacking penalty at work if you look at the prestige/piety/renown modifier breakdowns in the game now. The first hostage provides 100% of the bonus, the second only 75%, and the 5th and onward only provide 5% of the bonus.

 

[Zopyrionis]

An alternate solution is to have a stacking penalty applied to modifiers, so that the best modifier gets applied at 100%, while the next best modifier might only get applied at 66 or 75% of its value, and so on. That way getting a higher modifier than one already owned is still beneficial, but stacking modifiers past 2-3 of them provides almost no benefit at all for the additional ones. It also means the development staff can more readily control the minimum and maximum stats by the size of the largest modifier value they allow without having to worry about the size of the pool of available modifiers.

Yes, that may be even greater and easier solution for modifiers problem. And it also can be done as a gaming rule (on/off, player only).

 

[ENFP]

I think game rules are the perfect solution for difficulty. It will stop new players from ragequitting because the base difficulty goes up, but it lets the developers keep us masochist and RPrs happy. I really hope something like what you thought up gets implemented!

 

[Zopyrionis]

I think game rules are the perfect solution for difficulty. It will stop new players from ragequitting because the base difficulty goes up, but it lets the developers keep us masochist and RPrs happy. I really hope something like what you thought up gets implemented!

Even if we assume that this game rule will be created, it is very important that the default setting doesn’t change anything in the game. Harmful events, even though player can turn them off via game rule, cause a lot of complaints. And now many players demand a rule to turn off the plagues. I am afraid to imagine what will happen if modifiers stacking will be limited by default.

 

[ENFP]

Even if we assume that this game rule will be created, it is very important that the default setting doesn’t change anything in the game. Harmful events, even though player can turn them off via game rule, cause a lot of complaints. And now many players demand a rule to turn off the plagues. I am afraid to imagine what will happen if modifiers stacking will be limited by default.

I agree, I think it is important that it is a purely optional change. I have nothing but incredibly high praise for how the plague game rules function, they can go from zero impact to insanely deadly--I think this range is how every gamerule ought to work. I would be ecstatic (and I think a lot of other players also would be) to see difficulty game rules like modifier stacking implemented. Let the player who thinks CK3 is too hard have options but also players like me who have to extensively mod the difficulty to have fun.

 

[vandevere]

I agree, I think it is important that it is a purely optional change. I have nothing but incredibly high praise for how the plague game rules function, they can go from zero impact to insanely deadly--I think this range is how every gamerule ought to work. I would be ecstatic (and I think a lot of other players also would be) to see difficulty game rules like modifier stacking implemented. Let the player who thinks CK3 is too hard have options but also players like me who have to extensively mod the difficulty to have fun.

More Game rules with more variance in Ease/Difficulty can only be a good thing...

 

[William the Merry]

Do realize that multiplicative modifiers flatten the bell curve of the stats even more than additive ones, due to the fact that they benefit higher base scores more than lower ones. An alternate solution is to have a stacking penalty applied to modifiers, so that the best modifier gets applied at 100%, while the next best modifier might only get applied at 66 or 75% of its value, and so on. That way getting a higher modifier than one already owned is still beneficial, but stacking modifiers past 2-3 of them provides almost no benefit at all for the additional ones. It also means the development staff can more readily control the minimum and maximum stats by the size of the largest modifier value they allow without having to worry about the size of the pool of available modifiers.

You can see that sort of stacking penalty at work if you look at the prestige/piety/renown modifier breakdowns in the game now. The first hostage provides 100% of the bonus, the second only 75%, and the 5th and onward only provide 5% of the bonus.

View attachment 1099204

Had no idea that hostages had such declining returns, wonder why