Please change the name of "international organizations" to literally anything else

[Oglesby]

Those tell absolutely nothing about what you are dealing with.

And I say callings them 'part of a group of things in which their commonality is that they have unique mechanics' tell me nothing about what I am dealing with.

PUs are common, as are ad hoc alliances like Jihads or liberation coalitions. They follow from somewhat generic rules and events. And there can be multiples of them in the world.

PUs have unique rules and event. Sure those may be shared between different instances of PUs but they are not common to IOs in general. PUs can be defined without any mention of Jihad or the HRE so why should we link them.
Jihad and liberation coalitions do not have the same rules.

The HRE, Ilkhanate, Tatar Yoke or Catholic Church are unique IOs (sui generis type). There will not be multiples of these in the world and they have special rules attached to them.

 

[Oglesby]

Man, i find it so... limited... when people go on abouh how you cant compare apples and organes...

Ofc you can, they are both edable fruots grown on trees, one cost 3€ per kilo and is imported the other is locally prodiced and costs half a.euro per kilo.
Both need bees and other isects to produce.
One have this and that chemical composition the other a bit of that and some of that...

If you find it hard to put international organization (sure, the name sounds anahronostic and not the most immmersive) ... but the term does a very well job of summing up the common feature berwwen those organizations

Because it is apples and orangutans. Both are things that exist in the world but my interactions with one does not help me understand the other.

 

[McEwanMaster]

Both are things that exist in the world but my interactions with one does not help me understand the other.

They can when it comes to the kinesthetic nature of UI.

Elements of UI are placed in particular locations on the screen to draw the eye, and the distance and direction of those eye movements form part of the cognitive learning process on a subconscious level. Many aspects of the UI which will relate to IOs will be common across these otherwise entirely unique bundles of mechanics, and providing a common name/umbrella term for them will create an additional, possibly necessary, relationship between that name, the UI kinesthetics they relate to, and thus the relevant concepts/mechanics. Even if common UI elements are only on the most surface level, it is that surface level that is the most important to break someone through the initial learning curve and give them the momentum they need to dive into the details.

Say our new player has just come from a game in the HRE and wants to jump into a Japanese country, two very different experiences in many respects, but which will share common UI elements like the buttons placed at the bottom of the screen. A relationship of the type I described above would allow them to be prompted, upon seeing the name "International Organization" at the top level of a country's descriptive information, to draw their attention to the related UI elements and thus deepen their reflexive understanding of both their new Japanese country and the game's systems at large simultaneously, all based on what they learned in their previous HRE experience.

An organizational consideration I haven't seen mentioned yet, which also relates to educating people about the game over the long term on the industry level, is that "International Organization" represents one of PC's primary gameplay selling points. The concept is a new and technically exciting addition to the IP and the Paradox franchise as a whole. If Tinto describes various things as IOs, this allows marketing to predictably and recurrently draw people in and allow people to quickly understand what is being referred to, and so provide a basic expectation of what could be involved, whether the topic is a preexisting IO in the game or an addition as part of a new DLC or update. Long introductions are the death of public engagement, and I don't think Tinto will realistically abandon this tack.

 

[Oglesby]

Let's say that a player, brand new to PGSGs, enters their first game of PC. They have not followed these dev diaries and through them learned about the game's entire framework. They are presented with a large quantity of gameplay concepts that will be more or less relevant their gameplay. Learning all of these things will be a possibly lengthy process no matter how well-crafted the UI is; what will help speed that process, or prevent them from feeling overwhelmed?

To put it short, I believe that player insight into the backend could absolutely increase comprehension, and I agree with Ekyman about the term itself:


In my opinion, using umbrella terms like International Organization will help even new players create a cognitive grouping of concepts. Presenting players with a dozen unique components like the HRE, Ilkhanate, PUs, etc. that appear completely disconnected from one another will make the player feel responsible for learning them all individually (that this will happen anyway, from a gameplay standpoint, is not the point). Instead, naming them as IOs in the game's top-level conceptual basis will help the player intuitively group UI components together, like the IO buttons that will appear at the bottom of the screen, and create avenues for future recognition by identifying individual IOs as part of a larger system of mechanics.

First the game does not need to present all of them to a new player. It will only present the few that are relevant. Currently the only thing that would be presenting more than those that are relevant is the subtitle of International Organization.

These components appear disconnected because they are disconnected. Sure they all have buttons, but other things also have buttons. An IO button shouldn't act differently than any other main screen button. Clicking either button or pressing its hotkey opens a panel with more information about the subject of the button. I would hope that they would keep the buttons relatively bunched on the main screen as the IO ones are extensions to the mechanics the base buttons offer. The UI component of the HRE button should be grouped with the base buttons and not need to rely on the concept that there is this thing that is IO and IOs have buttons.

I feel having the grouping of IO makes false connections and will make new players assume there is more commonality then there is. When the commonality is all in the back end or that they have UI elements (panel, button, map).

Sure I think that if a player attempted to learn everything there is about the game all at once then that is where they would get overwhelmed but I think that is outside of what in-game tooltips can provide. Having a section in the wiki called 'bespoke mechanics' or even IO make sense but I see that more like how Realm, Extra, or Meta is currently used in the wiki but not defined in game.

 

[Oglesby]

They can when it comes to the kinesthetic nature of UI.

Elements of UI are placed in particular locations on the screen to draw the eye, and the distance and direction of those eye movements form part of the cognitive learning process on a subconscious level. Many aspects of the UI which will relate to IOs will be common across these otherwise entirely unique bundles of mechanics, and providing a common name/umbrella term for them will create an additional, possibly necessary, relationship between that name, the UI kinesthetics they relate to, and thus the relevant concepts/mechanics. Even if common UI elements are only on the most surface level, it is that surface level that is the most important to break someone through the initial learning curve and give them the momentum they need to dive into the details.

Say our new player has just come from a game in the HRE and wants to jump into a Japanese country, two very different experiences in many respects, but which will share common UI elements like the buttons placed at the bottom of the screen. A relationship of the type I described above would allow them to be prompted, upon seeing the name "International Organization" at the top level of a country's descriptive information, to draw their attention to the related UI elements and thus deepen their reflexive understanding of both their new Japanese country and the game's systems at large simultaneously, all based on what they learned in their previous HRE experience.

I would hope that the IO buttons would be grouped with the basic buttons as they serve the same function. If the UI is segregating IO buttons then it is doing a disservice by forcing us to assume that they are both different than the basic buttons and like each other.

A new player starting as a country in Japan for the first time. Sees buttons along the edge of the screen. They intuitively mouse of the button and get more information about the button and where it leads. They click the button opening a panel that provides more information about the concept. This player interaction doesn't care if this is one of the base buttons or a special IO button. The knowledge of other IO buttons does not help more than the knowledge of basic main screen buttons.

An organizational consideration I haven't seen mentioned yet, which also relates to educating people about the game over the long term on the industry level, is that "International Organization" represents one of PC's primary gameplay selling points. The concept is a new and technically exciting addition to the IP and the Paradox franchise as a whole. If Tinto describes various things as IOs, this allows marketing to predictably and recurrently draw people in and allow people to quickly understand what is being referred to, and so provide a basic expectation of what could be involved, whether the topic is a preexisting IO in the game or an addition as part of a new DLC or update. Long introductions are the death of public engagement, and I don't think Tinto will realistically abandon this tack.

But is not though. These are mostly existing concepts that are implemented differently. They did pick an implementation to make is it easier to make more and facilitate mods, which is a plus. (Though I don't know how hard it would have been to copy and paste the HRE into something else in the code of EU4.)

 

[McEwanMaster]

First the game does not need to present all of them to a new player. It will only present the few that are relevant. Currently the only thing that would be presenting more than those that are relevant is the subtitle of International Organization.

These components appear disconnected because they are disconnected. Sure they all have buttons, but other things also have buttons. An IO button shouldn't act differently than any other main screen button. Clicking either button or pressing its hotkey opens a panel with more information about the subject of the button. I would hope that they would keep the buttons relatively bunched on the main screen as the IO ones are extensions to the mechanics the base buttons offer. The UI component of the HRE button should be grouped with the base buttons and not need to rely on the concept that there is this thing that is IO and IOs have buttons.

I feel having the grouping of IO makes false connections and will make new players assume there is more commonality then there is. When the commonality is all in the back end or that they have UI elements (panel, button, map).

Sure I think that if a player attempted to learn everything there is about the game all at once then that is where they would get overwhelmed but I think that is outside of what in-game tooltips can provide. Having a section in the wiki called 'bespoke mechanics' or even IO make sense but I see that more like how Realm, Extra, or Meta is currently used in the wiki but not defined in game.

I would hope that the IO buttons would be grouped with the basic buttons as they serve the same function. If the UI is segregating IO buttons then it is doing a disservice by forcing us to assume that they are both different than the basic buttons and like each other.

A new player starting as a country in Japan for the first time. Sees buttons along the edge of the screen. They intuitively mouse of the button and get more information about the button and where it leads. They click the button opening a panel that provides more information about the concept. This player interaction doesn't care if this is one of the base buttons or a special IO button. The knowledge of other IO buttons does not help more than the knowledge of basic main screen buttons.

I'm not sure how grouping specific IO buttons together on a particular part of the UI would be any different from other UI elements that we've learned to expect from PGSG titles in terms of their placement and function (minimap and filter buttons on bottom right, country banner on top EDIT: left, etc.) We're certainly used to IO button predecessors, like EU4's HRE button and Stellaris' Federation button.

In any case, what I understand the IO buttons to be, in basic terms, are a different way to access general information seen through other UI elements, pooled together and arranged on a to-purpose screen/interface depending on the needs and relevant gameplay relationships of each individual IO. This seems to be the name of PC's UI game in general: providing various pathways to access, display, and interpret information depending on the contextual nature of the UI elements and tooltips they provide.

If knowing which pathways provide what kinds of information in what manner is the end goal, then knowing what each of those surface level UI elements are and what they do is the first step and, for many types of learners, the most important. Players will of course learn these things intuitively as they play, but again, with a game as complex as PC, it's best to provide as many helpful cognitive relationships as possible. Not everyone is as info-hungry and neurotic about our video games as we can be, so ensuring that those most basic relationships are established is definitely the most responsible thing to do, especially if a solution affects so very little about the actual gameplay.

 

[Oglesby]

I'm not sure how grouping specific IO buttons together on a particular part of the UI would be any different from other UI elements that we've learned to expect from PGSG titles in terms of their placement and function (minimap and filter buttons on bottom right, country banner on top right, etc.) We're certainly used to IO button predecessors, like EU4's HRE button and Stellaris' Federation button.

I guess it has been a while since I have seen the Eu4 screen and forgot that it was one panel with many tabs and not a sidebar like most of the others. Looking at what panels we have seen I do not think that they would be going with this pattern again.

When I was saying buttons I guess I was meaning the main interaction ones like these. There is not reason that extending the mechanics could not just be a new button in this list.

In any case, what I understand the IO buttons to be, in basic terms, are a different way to access general information seen through other UI elements, pooled together and arranged on a to-purpose screen/interface depending on the needs and relevant gameplay relationships of each individual IO. This seems to be the name of PC's UI game in general: providing various pathways to access, display, and interpret information depending on the contextual nature of the UI elements and tooltips they provide.

That is the definition of those side bar buttons shown above too. There only difference is that you need to be a member to have the button.

"The sidebar buttons are a (different?) way to access general information seen through other UI elements, pooled together and arranged on a to-purpose screen/interface"

If knowing which pathways provide what kinds of information in what manner is the end goal, then knowing what each of those surface level UI elements are and what they do is the first step and, for many types of learners, the most important. Players will of course learn these things intuitively as they play, but again, with a game as complex as PC, it's best to provide as many helpful cognitive relationships as possible. Not everyone is as info-hungry and neurotic about our video games as we can be, so ensuring that those most basic relationships are established is definitely the most responsible thing to do, especially if a solution affects so very little about the actual gameplay.

But telling me "these things are grouped because they are not like anything else" doesn't feel like a useful connection.

 

[McEwanMaster]

But telling me "these things are grouped because they are not like anything else" doesn't feel like a useful connection.

To others it is a useful connection, considering what some of the commenters here have said.

This is one of those discussions where correct or incorrect don't come into play. The process of learning takes a different form for every single human being. In that sense, I simply stand by the course that provides more potential avenues of understanding over an option that doesn't, because we can't reasonably make broad judgements based on nothing but prediction. General-to-specific is a tried and tested teaching method, and it seems like Tinto, as masters of their craft, are trying to preserve those avenues, and in a way that doesn't compromise the gameplay itself.

 

[Znikii]

First the game does not need to present all of them to a new player

but they should for the experienced old timer?

ofc, UI should tell you at a glance all you (really) need to know .... but those are very general things.... is it a rural or a city building, is it a cavalry unit or a peasant levies, is it an IO or an Empire with 2 personal unions.....

while learning and understanding the machines are an very important part of any gameplay experience, double so if you have no prior experience and clear and useful UI makes this process sooo much smoother.... That not the main point

the usefulness of IO (and let's put aside that the term feels a bit too contemporary ) is not that it's telling it to you ''they are not like anything else''.... but it's signifying that it's not a simple diplomatic/dynastic agreement you can break or call upon, it's not the economy nor the society you can tweak here or there and not even internal makeup of your sovereign tag..... it's telling you it's ..... ''something else''
it's telling you it's binding to the other entities in more than just a one-way street with another, it's a culture of obligation you can't just leave or enter into. It doesn't matter if your ruling dynasty changes or you convert to the heretic religion or if you change your mind and wanna try something else. It's a system you can't escape regardless of your wishes and interests. And it doesn't matter if HRE is an orangutan and an Ilkanate the orange nor the shogunate similarities to the sandy beach. It's a system of order. And the persistence and robustness of it, goes beyond of an .... hey, I have an idea, let's create a commonwealth just because it will allow us more efficient administrative management.... it doesn't matter if one system is based upon legalistic interpretation of religion, the other on economic ties to each other and the other upon the values of family & conquest.

You are here, and you are gonna play this game. Or try very hard to break the wheel and set up a new order.

If you wish, it's an ideology

edit: i can't help myself.... omg i can't discern because they are all labelled an IO, what's the difference between the Shogunate, the Banking Syndicate and the One Roman Empire..... omg an orange doesn't translate into what an orangutan tastes like nor what is the sound of the music.... hmmm, is it in the Prince where such people are categorized as serviles and unfit to rule?

 

[Nostalgium]

it's telling you it's binding to the other entities in more than just a one-way street with another, it's a culture of obligation you can't just leave or enter into. It doesn't matter if your ruling dynasty changes or you convert to the heretic religion or if you change your mind and wanna try something else. It's a system you can't escape regardless of your wishes and interests.

Except when it does, and you can. You can leave the Catholic Church by converting, I presume. You can more than likely break a union through diplomacy. You can likely leave a Coalition if it's no longer in your interest to be part of it. It's not a "culture of obligation", whatever that means.

 

[Znikii]

Sure you can, you can try. But are you able to pay the price and survive?

(Unions and coalitions are not IO)

What about legal contract or transaction or duty/responsibility? Do you know what those are? Ever tried violating or breaking them?

 

[Nostalgium]

Sure you can, you can try. But are you able to pay the price and survive?

(Unions and coalitions are not IO)

What about legal contract or transaction or duty/responsibility? Do you know what those are? Ever tried violating or breaking them?

Unions and Coalitions are both IO.

 

[Znikii]

Unions and Coalitions are both IO.

My bad, they are IO.

But the point still stands, junior partners and the the crown lands in a Union have differsnt lvl of integration and 'freedoms' and obligations to each other
And why would leave a coalition, so you lose a protection of an alliance against the real threat and besides not really good for your reputation either if you pull out early and leave the thing....

 

[Bawhoppen]

I suppose that explaining IOs specifically and that they have different interactions and variables, is kinda like explaining that button interactions do stuff and there are different variables in game. Yes it's useful to learn deliberately, but it's such a ground-level concept, and since IOs are supposed to be fully unique, it does not make sense to explain them in particular.