Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

SP vs MP

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.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(21937)

unmerged(21937)

Your Industrial Friend
Nov 15, 2003
9.557
1
Now many things talked about in the recent threads seem to concern various countries performing as AI and often talks about balancing concern their AI performance. Things are often completely different in MP with humans, especially if there is many of them. For example, Eire is practically one of the best countries with it's early exploration capablities, just like Portugal, but even better with events, core territory and monarchs / leaders... Also concern about Bavaria seems to spring up from AI performance.

Now, is Aberration becoming SP or MP mod? Certainly it could be both, but tweaking significant issues only because of AI performance sounds quite drastic to me, especially if countries whose strong points are in areas where AI generally sucks (trade, diplomacy, colonization, anything to do with ships...) are boosted up to account for AI's failings. I do agree that some countries are too weak and some too strong compared to their opposition, but balancing things for MP would require testing in MP settings, not running hands-off games to see how AI plays out.

If futher Aberration improvement will go on the road of focusing on SP, it will be rather sad, because honestly, I never play SP.
 
While I too enjoy MP play immensely, I think that in honesty most of the Aberration players play SP. This is the area we are best at balancing and most able to test effectively. MP balance requires very extensive playtesting, and we just don't all have time for it. I'd love to play MP Aberration, but I don't have the time. I imagine it is much the same for others. The interest is there but the time for testing is not.

Anyways I'm sure we are open to suggestions. But just remember that we have to consider SP, too. It isn't fair to the majority of the players to just focus on MP, where strategic alliances prevent anyone from becoming overwhelmingly powerful. As I see it, MP is fairly self governing...and none of these nations is so powerful, or likely to become so powerful, that it kills MP play. This is all just personal opinion of course, but I don't see how any of these changes are going to damage MP play at all.
 
IIRC, this mod was designed to be a mp-mod firstly, that was what Archduke said to me first.
 
*Bows and worships Johan*

Now, to business.

I wasn't saying that we should ignore MP. What I am really looking for is a solution to a problem. Byak says that we should concentrate more on MP, and that is all well and good, but how? We don't truly have a practical way to test it in an organized fashion. Either way, how much effect will SP changes have on MP? For individual countries life will change, but for the game overall, balance should be maintained. I could understand the complaint if we were going to give Burgundy +200 btv in their capital, but the changes we are discussing are not precisely huge and we haven't even gotten down to specifics yet. I honestly believe that MP games are self balancing, and if, for example, Bavaria is too strong, then the Teutonic Order, Hansa, Genoa, Hungary, and Burgundy will get together and beat them to a pulp.

Still, I can see the want for MP balance. My question is...how? And if you have a good test platform (There seems to be a Wednesday Aberration game going up, we could ask them for feedback but it would only pertain to changes that need to be made from the current version), then what changes do you propose to make? We need more than a "don't forget MP" to go on! If you have an idea, then propose it. But if you don't, then please don't criticize.
 
Well, I'm not saying that only MP is important and I do realize some people will want to play SP, but I also do criticize significant changes to boost / degrade countries based on poor performance by AI, especially when those performing poor are very powerful countries if played by human player. I started this thread in first place after reading about possibly boosting Eire due to AI. I suggest that we use AI events, if we want to boost some countries which perform poorly as AI, due to AI's weakness regarding exploration, colonization, overseas action, trading etc.
 
Personally, I only play SP, so I'd be a bit disapointed if the focus was entirely on MP. I think the idea of AI only events for underperformers is good, and one that isn't used enough. I'd much rather play a strong, fun, and challenging AI then a 'fair' one.
 
2 big issues....

1) Why is change bad? Am I wrong, is MP not self policing? The game can change a great deal, and, for example, the Kaliphate is probably overpowered in MP just as much as in SP. Why is changing this bad? And in what way have we even begun to change anything related to trade or to naval warfare? I just don't see the basis of your statements to date.

2) Once again, specific examples of what you disagree with would be very helpful. Just spouting "MP should be looked after" is of no use without a specific complaint.
 
Well, I just wanted to voice out my feelings, when I started to get the feeling of "SP-focusement" and "Boosting countries for AI", readily apparent in the thread about Europe. Weddingbells and such.

I currently oppose very specific thing, changing countries and normal events because of poor AI performance, in any form. Changing countries that are overpowered / too weak generally is all well and good.

Also, MP is somewhat self-policing, but in long term campaign it would be nice that dice aren't loaded in significant manner for some countries. Having some countries clearly more powerful than others will just create "France-syndrome"* in Aberration as well. Which creates determinism and games going more and more in preditable manner.

*France-syndrome: Players attack France to keep it weak, only because it has greater potential than others.
 
Byakhiam said:
I currently oppose very specific thing, changing countries and normal events because of poor AI performance, in any form.
Click to expand...
I didn't know MP games managed to get human players for all countries. :p
Look it on the other way around : even in MP you do need a good enough AI, as you can't have a human player for every country. Most of the weird things are done by the AI, not the humans.

Byakhiam said:
Changing countries that are overpowered / too weak generally is all well and good.
Click to expand...
And that's what is done. The Caliphate is overpowered, as it has no serious opponent, so we'll decrease its power slightly, and make a valid opponent nearby. I don't see where it'd harm MP.

Byakhiam said:
Also, MP is somewhat self-policing, but in long term campaign it would be nice that dice aren't loaded in significant manner for some countries. Having some countries clearly more powerful than others will just create "France-syndrome"* in Aberration as well. Which creates determinism and games going more and more in preditable manner.
Click to expand...
IMHO, players who really want something balanced should play the IES. All other mods, and vanilla too, have stronger and weaker countries. But it doesn't repel players to use them. France is overwhelming later ? That's historical, it was a major powerhouse, with as much inhabitants as the whole HRE (Germany, Italy) + Lower Countries + Spain. France has probably been the country waging the more wars during those 400 years of EU2, and this is rightly reflected in the game, along with their power. As much as I understand that "France-syndrome", it's a logical (in the mind of decent players, probably not so for RPers) step to ensure one's safety later.
If, in vanilla, the spanish player starts rampaging Africa, to get loads of manpower, will the other countries let fall the matter ? I don't think so, and this is the same as France : auto-checking.


Finally, let just face it simply : Archduke can't take the burden of improving the mod anymore, but I haven't seen so much activity in this Forum until a few days ago. From that, and since Aberration is a MP-designed mod, I draw the conclusion that MPers are happy with it as it is. And then, as I'm a SPer at heart (lack of time and different way of playing), I'll tune the mod for SP principally, on the basis that MP is just a part of the game, and SP is the basis. I think my opinions on this subject (and on AI-efficiency) are well-known across the Forum, but if most players want to keep this mod as a MP-focused mod, with all it takes as consequences, I'll just step down and continue in my corner, I won't care about this mod anymore. It would be sad, true, but that's the point of it. There're much more SPers than MPers (a poll was made a few months ago), and keeping the mod flawed in concern with SP is just frustrating all of those SPers. If this forum is moving lately, it's in great part thanks to SPers, not MPers.

Besides, you could have jumped on my proposal in another thread (different events files for SP and MP) rather than starting to grieve.
 
lawkeeper said:
-loads of text, snipsnipsnip-

Besides, you could have jumped on my proposal in another thread (different events files for SP and MP) rather than starting to grieve.
Click to expand...

In fact, you just answered me in what I was questioning about in the core with this thread. The direction which Aberration would be going in future. I am also a big fan of democracy and if majority of contributors want to concentrate on SP, I believe I'll remain mostly as a passing critic instead of actively participating in creation, for me EU2 holds interest in MP only.

No grievances or anything, I just wanted to hear the direction. :)
 
Byakhiam said:
In fact, you just answered me in what I was questioning about in the core with this thread. The direction which Aberration would be going in future. I am also a big fan of democracy and if majority of contributors want to concentrate on SP, I believe I'll remain mostly as a passing critic instead of actively participating in creation, for me EU2 holds interest in MP only.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as well, and doubt I'll continue to participate in the mod if it goes towards SP.
 
Wow, everyone going "If it doesn't go my way, I quit!". This is really special. Byakhim, why are you so opposed to modifications to the game? I just can't understand this. Other than aberrating RotW, the only change that has been agreed upon has been to weaken the Kaliphate. Everyone agrees this must be done. I just can't operate here without a specific complaint. I think that the mod will continue to support all players, but we do want to support them all. You guys are being ridiculous, Byak if we do what you want then probably more than half of the players who use this mod will be sorely disappointed. You have effectively said no changing of nations with out the approval of a committee of MP players. This is ridiculous. Please, take a step back and realize that AI improvement is not just for SP. And we haven't done anything that even remotely effects trade or naval warfare, your main complaints. Johan, I don't exactly know how to accomodate you, but your presence on this subforum grants us a great deal of prestige and you are, of course, adept at coding yourself. We would all, I'm sure, appreciate it if you continued to stay and offer your input.

In short, we are not trying to force out MP. What we want to do is ensure EVERYONE, not just SP'ers or MP'ers, has a good playing experience. The result of this thread will quite likely be that many new events will be AI only. I hope that that is the only consequence of this discussion, since losing two forum members of such high repute over a meaningless squabble would really be sad.
 
I followed and played, but did not participate on the mod, since it first became public. I just would like to say two things:

(1) This MOD is good because (a) ArchDuke took control in an authoritarian and centralized manner, he became Aberration's Enlightened Monarch (b) Each country had one, and at most two people working on files, this meant that the event files for each country were cohesive and internally consistant, ArchDuke then ruthelessly went over event files, leaders, monarchs and territorial distribution to maintain external consistancy as well, but he could only do this because he was able to maintain a coherent vision of what direction he wanted this MOD to take (c) The MOD was geared towards a balanced and open ended Multiplayer experience (d) As AGC attempted (but never became), Aberration is non-deterministic and takes a structural approach to events (if a country possesses qualities a, b and c then Event X will fire, followed by responsive events from nearby countries) -- the various territorial division events are excellent examples of this (Gaul, Iberia, Russia), these events single handedly put Aberration into a league of its own (e) the MOD has reasonable and streamlined goals which were accomplishable given the resources at hand -- compare this to AGC and the difference is clear, more is not always better.

(2) This mod is actually really fun and intense in single player (or at least as much as EU single player can be fun and intense), just dont play the Kaliphate or Hungary. Try your hand at the Teutonic Order and launch the Crusade against a strong Russia, its fun and a challenge.

I'll be the prophet of doom and say if you turn away from the MP direction and limited scope that initially drove this MOD it will lose many of the characteristics that make it interesting.

Thanks,
Grendel
 
Last edited:
Grendel, we aren't trying to neglect MP. We are trying to make it more balanced for everyone. The MP people won't seem to listen when we say that we have to make changes, which will have very little effect on MP, to vastly improve SP. What the MP community is really asking for is the complete disregard for SP. It's not fair to those of us who enjoy SP.
 
CaptainBOB, I'm not trying to force anyone to go into any direction, I'm just implying that I, myself, will not participate that much. This is hobby ie. doing things for fun, not work ie. doing things because you have to or get rewards from it.
 
Byakhiam said:
CaptainBOB, I'm not trying to force anyone to go into any direction, I'm just implying that I, myself, will not participate that much. This is hobby ie. doing things for fun, not work ie. doing things because you have to or get rewards from it.
Click to expand...
I, myself, will stop answering questions in EUII Discussions if the betas continue to be geared towards MP at the detriment of SP.

Would this be fair ? No. Would this be wise ? Neither. Would I do this ? Nope. Would this be puerile ? Yes, off course.
That kind of speech is just being egoist and egocentrist. This Forum is a Community, and everyone in a community should accept other people's opinions and preferences. Not everything can be made in accordance to everyone's wishes.

But now, Byakhiam, you're free to do what you want to. If you don't want to participate, so be it.
Johan, if you don't want to participate, so be it too. You don't participate in the AGCEEP, yet that mod has great prestige too. Likewise, you're totally free to gear the betapatches towards MP, but don't expect everyone to follow you on this. I just want to remind you of one thing, two numbers : how many EU2 games did Paradox sell, and how many players do MP ? ;)
 
I don't understand where this democracy, or number of players silliness comes from. The simple fact is that in "revitalizing" Aberration you will have to choose either a single player, or a multi player focus and that will dictate how changes to the mod will be made. Do you take your feedback from the growing number of Aberration multi-player games, or do you run handsoff games and watch the AI play. There are definite trade-offs to be made, just compare AGCEEP to Aberration. AGCEEP is complex, single player oriented, historical and deterministic. It offers a fantastic single player experience thanks to the large number of dedicated individuals involved. Aberration on the other hand assumes human players making geostrategic decisions, so events are clear, concise and have definite tradeoffs that only a human player can understand. The difference is clear, AGCEEP is a ponderous MP experience, Aberration is not.

Clearly by the amount of support gathered for the revitalization project there is a strong demand for a SP Aberration. However, a SP Aberration was never the original intention, the goal, as I understand it, was to make a MP MOD that could be enjoyably played in SP, which is what Aberration now is. But make no mistake MP will suffer if SP is made a priority. I believe this fear is also what Byakhiam and Johan mentioned, but I will only speak for myself and say that that is how I feel.
 
From what I remember, Aberration was intendend from the start to be primarilly MP orrientatied, which is why I sort of ignored it at first. But, even with its MP focus I think Abe makes a fun SP game, I'd just like to see the SP bit given a bit more polish and shine. :)

Actually, what I'd really like to see is a lot more mods like Aberration. If Abe went solidly one way or another, it would open up the route for the 'losing' side to start fresh with a new, similar mod geared solidly towards MP or SP. Then the community would really win, with more fun varriants on EU2 to enjoy.

There was already a lot of interest in starting a 'new Abberation', so... ;)
 
Heh. Reading this thread reminds me how poorly I think democracy works when it comes to creating mods... :D

This would be a lot easier if ArchDuke just appointed an Abe dictator to sieze control of the mod in his own absense. Sure, some would be unhappy - but the further development would run smoothly and without lengthy discussions were it would be difficult to make a decision democratically.

Just my 2 cents...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back