Hive said:
Amen, he just needs to appoint someone who will continue the original vision of the Aberration MOD! Hmmm, I'm starting to have flashes of CK and succession laws...
-
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.
Amen, he just needs to appoint someone who will continue the original vision of the Aberration MOD! Hmmm, I'm starting to have flashes of CK and succession laws...
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.820
- 244.090
lawkeeper said:
The difference is that in Aberration I was one of the main participants. I designed Brittany & Scotland, made parts of Burgundy, and other things like Gaul Division and random evemts.
Everything in the mod work was always geared on making it properly balanced for MP, since vanilla is not really balanced in that aspect.
If you guys want to play an Aberration-like game in SP so very, very badly, why don't you make a mod of your own for that instead of trying to muscle in on this one??
How diplomatic.hansmaa said:
...
Anyway... I feel that Abe should continue to be open-ended and balanced for MP, though I don't think it should be quite so Eurocentric. It's fun as-is. Do we really need to make fundamental design changes?
Aberration was planned as a mod to give MP finally some sort of variety again after endless hours of playing France (powerful), Spain (rich), England (naval), shortly I couldn't stand it.
The thing is, Aberration is still quite fun in SP as I found out, but why have those two things SP and MP go against each other?
In my opinion a triggered war is useless and artifical, the human should always have an option, and most importantly I am a heavy AGCEEP critic, as it plays more like Event Universalis and not Europe Universalis anymore. If you got too many events, the joy of having a nice and good one wears off. So much for that.
I am happy to have Aberration improved, but you have to be cautious about that. Anyway, SP can be fun, but I loathe SP determinism as much as in MP. So when I see AI testruns done from 1419 to 1819 and then events geared towards having this or that accomplished, the idea of Aberration is dead!
I hope the discussion continues and I hope I made myself clear somehow.
The thing is, Aberration is still quite fun in SP as I found out, but why have those two things SP and MP go against each other?
In my opinion a triggered war is useless and artifical, the human should always have an option, and most importantly I am a heavy AGCEEP critic, as it plays more like Event Universalis and not Europe Universalis anymore. If you got too many events, the joy of having a nice and good one wears off. So much for that.
I am happy to have Aberration improved, but you have to be cautious about that. Anyway, SP can be fun, but I loathe SP determinism as much as in MP. So when I see AI testruns done from 1419 to 1819 and then events geared towards having this or that accomplished, the idea of Aberration is dead!
I hope the discussion continues and I hope I made myself clear somehow.
The demands of the MP only lobby confuse me still. You constantly accuse of single player focus. I simply don't see a focus on only SP. When did anyone go up and post a "MP is dead" thread? If you are going to complain COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING. All I have seen is a bunch of people accusing lawkeeper of focusing totally on SP. Show how he has done so, but only at the expense of MP! Then you might actually have an argument.
Furthermore, how would you propose going about focusing on MP? Apparently, from you posts, your grand MP balancing plan is stop modifying anything and drop the mod. I think it would really be a shame if so many countries ended up without events past 1600 or so. In my opinion, this is the area in which Aberration lacks the most, but that's just how I see it.
Lastly, why does everyone seem to think that changing a few things is bad? In what way do these things effect MP play negatively? The events will all have options to be disregarded, so what's the big deal? The only presently proposed changes are some fairly minor modifications to the Kaliphate and the aberration of the RotW...which which could probably be released as an add on pack, or something like that. How is this bad for MP? I still haven't gotten an answer to that question, all I seem to get for answers are a bunch of people saying "MP is being repressed!!".
Furthermore, how would you propose going about focusing on MP? Apparently, from you posts, your grand MP balancing plan is stop modifying anything and drop the mod. I think it would really be a shame if so many countries ended up without events past 1600 or so. In my opinion, this is the area in which Aberration lacks the most, but that's just how I see it.
Lastly, why does everyone seem to think that changing a few things is bad? In what way do these things effect MP play negatively? The events will all have options to be disregarded, so what's the big deal? The only presently proposed changes are some fairly minor modifications to the Kaliphate and the aberration of the RotW...which which could probably be released as an add on pack, or something like that. How is this bad for MP? I still haven't gotten an answer to that question, all I seem to get for answers are a bunch of people saying "MP is being repressed!!".
CaptainBOB, I have at least two or three times mentioned in this very thread the very thing I am complaining about, which probably is the biggest issue between MP and SP, boosting whole countries only because AI performs poorly with them. By boosting whole countries I mean changing tax values, changing normal events, changing normal leaders etc. I am completely fine with AI events to boost countries that need help as AI, but when those countries getting boosted are already powerful enough with a human player, then futher wholesale boosting of them is not really good for MP.
Byakhiam, what I was honestly looking for has been very specific examples of where this kind of action has been undertaken. I know that we were planning to modify KoJ, but mostly just to slow down the Kaliphate in MP and in SP. MP the difference will honestly be minimal. I doubt that KoJ is ever going to be played in MP, so it's not that big an issue. The modification to the Kaliphate, on the other hand, is much more comprehensive. Then again, it is a modification that I think we can all agree is necessary (tell me if I'm wrong). They need to be weakened.
The only other changes being made are to the RotW. Those I urge you to bring it up in specific threads. If there are any specific complaints, then please, put them out here for us to see. I assure you that I value the multiplayer aspects of this mod (I'm currently participating in a MP game using Aberration), and I'm sure all of us appreciate its MP focused history. Personally, I don't see why they can't work together. I have a proposal to streamline this idea.
This is organized by (level of authority) followed by a blank line then the next level
New org chart:
Mod head- lawkeeper
MP advisory committee (Byak, Johan, etc.)
Archduke as general advisor
Event design people
Scenario modders
Editors in general
Players
Suggestors
etc.
I know it isn't truly a great organizationaly feat, but if we can actually get down to getting ourselves organized this problem would be greatly helped.
In the meantime, can we please consider some compromise? Thanks in advance!
The only other changes being made are to the RotW. Those I urge you to bring it up in specific threads. If there are any specific complaints, then please, put them out here for us to see. I assure you that I value the multiplayer aspects of this mod (I'm currently participating in a MP game using Aberration), and I'm sure all of us appreciate its MP focused history. Personally, I don't see why they can't work together. I have a proposal to streamline this idea.
This is organized by (level of authority) followed by a blank line then the next level
New org chart:
Mod head- lawkeeper
MP advisory committee (Byak, Johan, etc.)
Archduke as general advisor
Event design people
Scenario modders
Editors in general
Players
Suggestors
etc.
I know it isn't truly a great organizationaly feat, but if we can actually get down to getting ourselves organized this problem would be greatly helped.
In the meantime, can we please consider some compromise? Thanks in advance!
Ok. Originally posted in "Europe between flames of war and wedding bells" thread.
This is what first stirred me up, when I started the thread.
EDIT: And there were other things too, mostly to do with determinism regarding war events and something else, but I think my post in that thread adressed most of it already, so it would be spammish to repost it.
Lawkeeper said:
This is what first stirred me up, when I started the thread.
EDIT: And there were other things too, mostly to do with determinism regarding war events and something else, but I think my post in that thread adressed most of it already, so it would be spammish to repost it.
I'm surprised this debate is still going on, as I have trouble understanding the concerns the MP'ers are voicing. Personally, I DON'T see the problem with boosting an individual country that persistantly performs poorly under AI control. ANY country does well, usually exceedingly well, under human control, so what?
With the general idea of MP being initial starting balance between the playable countries, I think the BEST test for that is the AI's performance, with few exceptions. What should be seen with an ideal setup is that any particular country under the AI collapses, stays about the same, or grows much larger in about equal amounts across many games. If this is true across the major MP playable countries under the AI, then you know a good balance has been achieved in the possibilites and playability of the countries, with few exceptions (such as Ireland or Portugal). If a AI controlled country in SP CONSISTANTLY fails to perform at all, it doesn't matter if they can excel with a human player in SP, the only logical conclusion is that they have a disadvantaged start, and thus do nothing to enhance MP without some kind of added handicap.
It's all well and good that most people can do amazing with, say, Bavaria in SP, but I can tell you just by looking at the start up that in a MP game, one of the first things I would do as the Hanse or Hungary or Burgundy, etc. would be to gang up on Bavaria and in one war completely crush and annex them, just as happens in SP. It just makes sense, from a tactical, strategic, and economic standpoint.
Honestly, I fail to understand how a country that gets crushed every game with the AI could be a viable country in MP at all WITHOUT wholesale boosting (excepting colonizers). And I especially fail to see that we yet to suggest changes for any country falling in this category. This is why I can't believe this thread has caused this much discussion over what I see to be a moot point.
With the general idea of MP being initial starting balance between the playable countries, I think the BEST test for that is the AI's performance, with few exceptions. What should be seen with an ideal setup is that any particular country under the AI collapses, stays about the same, or grows much larger in about equal amounts across many games. If this is true across the major MP playable countries under the AI, then you know a good balance has been achieved in the possibilites and playability of the countries, with few exceptions (such as Ireland or Portugal). If a AI controlled country in SP CONSISTANTLY fails to perform at all, it doesn't matter if they can excel with a human player in SP, the only logical conclusion is that they have a disadvantaged start, and thus do nothing to enhance MP without some kind of added handicap.
It's all well and good that most people can do amazing with, say, Bavaria in SP, but I can tell you just by looking at the start up that in a MP game, one of the first things I would do as the Hanse or Hungary or Burgundy, etc. would be to gang up on Bavaria and in one war completely crush and annex them, just as happens in SP. It just makes sense, from a tactical, strategic, and economic standpoint.
Honestly, I fail to understand how a country that gets crushed every game with the AI could be a viable country in MP at all WITHOUT wholesale boosting (excepting colonizers). And I especially fail to see that we yet to suggest changes for any country falling in this category. This is why I can't believe this thread has caused this much discussion over what I see to be a moot point.
Seems, I was pretty unclear. Atm Lawkeeper is the new project leader, I will aid him as best as I can and hopefully satisfy the concerns of the MP group somehow.
Byakhiam, you just posted while I was typing, so I'm going to write this separate so as to show its a response, both to you and in general.
I agree with you, Erie is an exception as colonizer, and we need to tread very carefully with modifying them, but I think it's already been made fairly clear that the majority of the SP's also do not want determinism in wars either.
The solution is simply to point out these execptions to changes as they are proposed, and explain to us WHY said changes will unbalance that country in MP, rather than having this thread. If the argument has merit, that should be more than enough to help us modify whatever changes we make to keep both the interests of MP and SP in mind. But advocating a status quo cannot be a solution, as it is impossible the even the MP setup couldn't use some tweaking, and I sure as hell know the SP one does.
I agree with you, Erie is an exception as colonizer, and we need to tread very carefully with modifying them, but I think it's already been made fairly clear that the majority of the SP's also do not want determinism in wars either.
The solution is simply to point out these execptions to changes as they are proposed, and explain to us WHY said changes will unbalance that country in MP, rather than having this thread. If the argument has merit, that should be more than enough to help us modify whatever changes we make to keep both the interests of MP and SP in mind. But advocating a status quo cannot be a solution, as it is impossible the even the MP setup couldn't use some tweaking, and I sure as hell know the SP one does.
Problem with AI is that AI does poorly in some areas, so handsoff results with AI will show some countries (mostly countries who very much need trade and / or colonization) performing more poorly than they would in MP game with humans playing them. Therefore I would suggest that countries that certainly perform well with human player in MP (there are few MPs that have been using Aberration already, so there is some material to base observation to), but perform poorly with AI, would be boosted with AI events, but make them optional, to retain ability to turn them off if they are not desired in the particular game.
EDIT: Or there might even be optional AI events for all countries that make AI more challenging for SP purposes. Perhaps have different sets of them so each player may pick the set he finds most suitable for his skill level.
EDIT: Or there might even be optional AI events for all countries that make AI more challenging for SP purposes. Perhaps have different sets of them so each player may pick the set he finds most suitable for his skill level.
Byak, you're dishonest. You're quoting one among many suggestions that were to be talked about, that I put to push the discussion, and that weren't decided yet. BTW, if this is the one thing that stirred you up at first, why didn't you voice your opinion in this thread ?Byakhiam said:
Otherwise, I fully endorse the opinions of CaptainBOB and Ericus1 : AI is the best available proof of the power of a country, with the exception of colonizers (tough with the caveat that good AI files and AI-help files can make rather decent colonizers, at least as successful as historically - just look at Daywalker's mod).
This is not to say that I will push this mod towards an SP-only mod. As I already said and repeated, different event-files could be used, that would need only slight editing to put in place.
Anyway, end of the quarrel. This mod will continue to be improved, and I'd prefer people express their concerns in specific threads before going on a rattle about everything, as that may only bring ill will for everyone. I hope this thread will soon be relegated to second page.
Hmmm...I think that the Eire thing was just a potential suggestion. It hasn't had any work done on it since. Perhaps AI file improvement is a better way to go. My personal opinion is that we should have AI events that load the first day of the second month of the campaign for each country that needs improvement.
Argh, I had very nice and long post, but I closed browser window and lost it. :wacko:
Anyways, I'll repeat the important points of it:
1) I apologize to Lawkeeper and anyone else who was offended from that "If you do like this I quit" thing
2) I think I was a bit too hasty with this thread and it got little too big
3) I'll stick to complain into correct threads instead of ranting like this
4) I had some constructive ideas, but I'll put them in more correct place
Anyways, I'll repeat the important points of it:
1) I apologize to Lawkeeper and anyone else who was offended from that "If you do like this I quit" thing
2) I think I was a bit too hasty with this thread and it got little too big
3) I'll stick to complain into correct threads instead of ranting like this
4) I had some constructive ideas, but I'll put them in more correct place
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.820
- 244.090
Ericus1 said:
ehmm... no.
Bavaria ruled supreme and alone in MP versus multiple enemies when we played.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.820
- 244.090
lawkeeper said:
I do not agree at all, as the AI in eu2 is pretty abysmal at "fighting" a war.
Any nation geared towards being a strong military nation WILL perform much much worse as an AI nation.
Then again, the economical and colonial AI ain't better.
AI military sucks. AI economy sucks. AI colonization sucks. AI trading sucks.Johan said:
To me, it appears you say AI sucks in all domains, in a close order of magnitude. At least, I do agree with that, and hope for one day, EU3...