So if you kill somebody's dad you want to be forced to kill the whole family because you know they will never stop to hate you?
-
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.
That was very often the logic at the time if you didn't want rebellion or unrest in the future, yes.
- 17
- 4
- 1
I mean, I don't want to kill the family, I want them to have an appropriate opinion of me because I, you know, killed their father. Not an unreasonable request.
- 22
- 2
Reminds me of a part in the Prince where Machiavelli counsels how to avoid being hated:
“above all things, abstain from taking people’s property, for men sooner forget the death of their fathers than the loss of their patrimony.”
So according to Machiavelli, killing somebody’s dad is like -50 relations tops. But if you take their land along with it, that’s like -250 and then yes you got to get them before they get you lol
- 17
There are those around here that will say.....but CK3 is a roleplaying game.....
Which is sad because I've had more quality roleplaying moments knocking around in Old World than in CK3.
Nothing is relevant in CK3......nothing happens in the context of your character......everything is loosely strung together.....
All sound and fury.......signifying a huge nothingburger.
Which is sad because I've had more quality roleplaying moments knocking around in Old World than in CK3.
Nothing is relevant in CK3......nothing happens in the context of your character......everything is loosely strung together.....
All sound and fury.......signifying a huge nothingburger.
- 17
- 4
- 1
This works the other way round, too: If somebody kills your dad you want him to kill your whole family and do not stop before you are taken out of the game.
- 1
To me it's about character management. Having so many characters in the game would be pointless if the game fails to make it about managing them, either as your vassals or as your courtiers.
But the problem is we are getting a lot of mechanics that "adds more stuff for players to do in peacetime" that doesn't really have much to do with character management as you use them to stack more bonus and modifiers.
We instead need more mechanics about managing characters. Something like a jealously mechanic amongst your followers, vassals and courtiers alone can add more interesting gameplay to the campaign.
- 3
- 1
- 1
This is where a rebalance of modifiers, or limitations of modifier bonus might make things more challenging.
If the game makes it harder to make everyone like you, then a player would play a different game as it's a balancing act to ensure just enough people like you to not threaten your power.
- 1
I think the easy fix here would be having certain negative modifiers not decay and require some kind reconciliation to get rid of them.
- 11
- 1
Or you reach a point where you vassals would support your heirs to overthrow you early.
- 2
yeah that explains the two-way rivalry of CK3. If someone hates you enough to murder you, you should have a low opinion of them as well.
Not true. Skills give you actual stacking bonuses, like general opinion and prestige mult, advantage and army maintaince, income and DOMAIN LIMIT, scheme secrecy and piety/innovation research speed. Opinion bonuses dont matter if target already has 100 opinion, yes, but having more than what's required for that makes sure they STAY at 100 opinion even if you torture them, execute their mother, take away their title, force-concubine them and make them your jester all while having -200 tyranny opinion debuff.
- 2
Unless you are the designer in question, there is no 'to you.' Core design philosophies are not subjective evaluations. They are deliberate and defined premise.
You may not know the core design philosophy. There may not be a core design philosophy. But a design philosophy is not something that you get to invoke a 'but that's my opinion,' any more than one gets to claim death of the author as a basis to contest an explicit authorial intent.
'Core design philosophy' is not a buzzword for underscoring rhetorical emphasis. It is a thing.
This is not a design philosophy. This is a player task.
It may be a gameplay dynamic. It may even be a gameplay loop if you stretch the term 'management' far enough. But this is a gameplay characterization, not a design philosophy.
A design philosophy is a principle of the design of the thing. It may be a core assumption, a foundation, or an implication to be pursued. Most importantly it is a decision aid. The principle frames dilemmas of potential development routes for the designer to focus towards. It may not apply to every aspect of the game- and there can be multiple design philosophies at play- but it should be discernable from the decisions the developers do take.
You can test the plausibility of a design philosophy by testing it backwards to major design decisions since launch. A design philosophy should be apparent in how DLC are designed and implemented, since DLC are- by their nature- repeated iterations of game design and development. Core design philosophies should show up consistently, even if not literally always.
An example of a CK3 game design philosophy might be 'Tie the game to the map.'
This provides a foundation for future designs- all expansion-scale DLC must track and be tied to the game map in some way. It provides a common set of implication- various new map modes, map-level animations, or geographically-bounded mechanics that make the map something to pay attention to rather than ignore, which means the company best be gradually developing new graphic requirements to make the map board ever more interesting. It provides a basis for making a design decision of what to or not to do, such as judging whether a major DLC's new mechanics has enough tie-in to the world map.
'Map-tied mechanics' can certainly be observed across most of the DLC to date. Whether it's new ways to traverse the map (travel system, varangian adventure casus belli, adventuring), new mechanics/events that are geographically bound to the map (struggle regions, plagues and legends, grand activities), or just things to see on the map (map-modes for new mechanics, unique building models, map animations), there is a lot of emphasis on the map. Even a DLC that was explicitly about character relationships over geopolitics- Wards and Wardens- has a map-element in how it introduced hostage mechanics as a way to force truces with other powers on the map, and entails sending a child from one map-tied realm to another.
By contrast, 'character management' is... not exactly challenged or advanced at a design level. New DLC bring new character interactions. There are new things to manage that then affect characters. There is certainly a strong case that 'character [something] [something]' is a design philosophy.
But 'character management'?
'Expand ways for characters to express relationships' would have a stronger case.
The year one culture system (and even Varangians) introduced culture-based mechanics to engage (and sometimes enrage) neighbors. The year 1 and 2 struggle systems work across normal religious / cultural boundaries to allow unusual relationships, be they marriages or invasions. Hostages and dynastic feuds are certainly distinct additions on that premise. Even Legends of the Dead would meet this philosophy- they may be dead characters, but funerals are still opportunities to characterize the relationship.
Maybe this case convinces you. Maybe it doesn't. But it does have an implication if it is closer to the design philosophy than 'character management.'
And that is that the 'stacking modifiers make the game too easy' line of argument, or this part from the opening-
-has nothing to do with 'countering' a (proposed) design philosophy of 'Expand ways for the characters to express relationships.'
It may be reasons you do not like the game. It can be widely agreed flaws in a game. It can even be 'objectively bad,' as objective as that can ever be.
But there is no premise that things you do not like about a game contradict the game's design philosophy. Just as there is no guarantee you will like a faithfully pursued design philosophy.
If you can recognize a core design philosophy in the first place.
- 11
- 2
- 2
I agree that some modifier stackings should be reworked to have more balance and more “realistic” game play.
What I currently wish for is an update on empires. They practically play like large kingdoms and usually 100 to 200 years in, they become incredibly boring. As mentioned in the first thread: the more you play, the easier it gets.
One idea I had was to have some strong negative modifiers that increase with time (the longer your empire exists, the more problematic it gets) and with the size of your empire. I think holding an empire as large as a continent should be extremely difficult, especially over a longer period of time. Conquering and controlling the whole map should be nearly impossible.
I hope some tweaking will be done in the future to make the late game more challenging in that regard.
What I currently wish for is an update on empires. They practically play like large kingdoms and usually 100 to 200 years in, they become incredibly boring. As mentioned in the first thread: the more you play, the easier it gets.
One idea I had was to have some strong negative modifiers that increase with time (the longer your empire exists, the more problematic it gets) and with the size of your empire. I think holding an empire as large as a continent should be extremely difficult, especially over a longer period of time. Conquering and controlling the whole map should be nearly impossible.
I hope some tweaking will be done in the future to make the late game more challenging in that regard.
- 14
Yeah, modifier stacking is a huge issue just like it was on CK2. The AI never does it while it is a very logical thing for the player to do.
As an example you can just look at all the threads on reddit where people go "everyone has +100 opinion with me, why are they forming factions??". The problem isn't the factions forming, it is the fact that you can easily max out the opinion of everyone in the game by stacking modifiers. +100 relationships should be incredibly rare imo, representative of a long-term best friend or soulmate. Instead it is fully possible to have a rival with +100 opinion in this game which makes the number meaningless.
The best solution I've heard to this is giving diminishing returns to modifiers, so your first +10 prowess etc. gives you the full amount but the next bonus is only 90% as effective and so on but I'm no game designer so I'm not sure how good it would work in practice.
e; an issue here is that stacking modifiers simply is fun to do. Unlocking bonuses in the legacy tree, getting inheritable traits into your family and so on are all things that are popular because it feels good so you can't just kill it completely by only making the single highest modifier count or whatever.
As an example you can just look at all the threads on reddit where people go "everyone has +100 opinion with me, why are they forming factions??". The problem isn't the factions forming, it is the fact that you can easily max out the opinion of everyone in the game by stacking modifiers. +100 relationships should be incredibly rare imo, representative of a long-term best friend or soulmate. Instead it is fully possible to have a rival with +100 opinion in this game which makes the number meaningless.
The best solution I've heard to this is giving diminishing returns to modifiers, so your first +10 prowess etc. gives you the full amount but the next bonus is only 90% as effective and so on but I'm no game designer so I'm not sure how good it would work in practice.
e; an issue here is that stacking modifiers simply is fun to do. Unlocking bonuses in the legacy tree, getting inheritable traits into your family and so on are all things that are popular because it feels good so you can't just kill it completely by only making the single highest modifier count or whatever.
Last edited:
- 14
It's fun to do it in early game but once you reach late game you find it a lot less engaging as you're just so overpowered. And there's even less things for you to unlock as well.
- 9
I dusted off and revisited CK2 this weekend, and I'm reminded honestly how hard that game was, by comparison.
You still got modifiers, but the scaling is so different, that +1 or +2 diplomacy isn't going to make much difference. Artifacts don't feel overpowered, and the ones that are, tend to be much rarer and harder to get (Art of War +5 martial, but I could never get the Chinese emperor to give it to me, I got it by random luck while sieging a holding)
I have so many illustrious artifacts in CK3 that I'm thinking an option to "Have a yard sale" needs to be added to the decision tab.
Vassal opinion was harder to manage, and since it was tied to how many troops they give you, you kind of have to give a damn.
Benefit to opinion from prestige capped out at +10 (at 2000 prestige). You could keep earning prestige beyond that, but opinion bonus didn't go any higher. So, so very different from CK3 where once you hit "living legend" rank you can basically just execute your vassals in the middle of the street in broad daylight and everyone still loves you -especially if you go down the middle tree of diplomacy ("Double effects from fame level" => activate ignore enemies mode => Oh and . . . How many knights do you want? => All of them).
In CK2, everyone's trying to kill you, or forge claims on your liege title. Everyone. Even people who don't necessarily hate you. All some of them need, is for you to be in their way of getting a promotion. It's very . . . reasonable. I don't fear anyone in CK3 plotting against me. I've had 2 characters murdered since the game came out in 2020. For one, I always know who the schemers are. It's always a rival. You just check the relation tab and boom, there he is. Even if you haven't fully uncovered the plot yet, you know who it is. CK2 gives you a cryptic message that someone is plotting to kill you, and you check the relationship tab, and you don't have any rivals. Now *that* is scary. It could be anyone.
There's no maxing out multiple lifestyles. You get one (1) lifestyle trait. One. You aren't stacking up bonuses on top of bonuses along the way, until you reach the end of a lifestyle tree. The bonuses aren't all that amazing or overpowered for the lifestyle traits: +3 diplomacy, +10 attraction and +10 for same-trait opinion for having the "socializer" trait from inviting people to 'carousing'. It blocks you out of earning other lifestyle traits. Choose wisely. (and once you get the trait, any +1 or +2 diplomacy modifiers leading up to that are removed, not stacked)
And today, I had a battle in CK2, and I lost.
I lost a battle.
And those armies don't refill in a month. I underestimated the enemy and didn't pay much attention to setting my commanders up properly. You don't even have to think about that in CK3. [Monkey click big number. Get banana.] Cost me the war and had me raging.
But when I come back to Ck3 everything is waaaay too predictable.
You still got modifiers, but the scaling is so different, that +1 or +2 diplomacy isn't going to make much difference. Artifacts don't feel overpowered, and the ones that are, tend to be much rarer and harder to get (Art of War +5 martial, but I could never get the Chinese emperor to give it to me, I got it by random luck while sieging a holding)
I have so many illustrious artifacts in CK3 that I'm thinking an option to "Have a yard sale" needs to be added to the decision tab.
Vassal opinion was harder to manage, and since it was tied to how many troops they give you, you kind of have to give a damn.
Benefit to opinion from prestige capped out at +10 (at 2000 prestige). You could keep earning prestige beyond that, but opinion bonus didn't go any higher. So, so very different from CK3 where once you hit "living legend" rank you can basically just execute your vassals in the middle of the street in broad daylight and everyone still loves you -especially if you go down the middle tree of diplomacy ("Double effects from fame level" => activate ignore enemies mode => Oh and . . . How many knights do you want? => All of them).
In CK2, everyone's trying to kill you, or forge claims on your liege title. Everyone. Even people who don't necessarily hate you. All some of them need, is for you to be in their way of getting a promotion. It's very . . . reasonable. I don't fear anyone in CK3 plotting against me. I've had 2 characters murdered since the game came out in 2020. For one, I always know who the schemers are. It's always a rival. You just check the relation tab and boom, there he is. Even if you haven't fully uncovered the plot yet, you know who it is. CK2 gives you a cryptic message that someone is plotting to kill you, and you check the relationship tab, and you don't have any rivals. Now *that* is scary. It could be anyone.
There's no maxing out multiple lifestyles. You get one (1) lifestyle trait. One. You aren't stacking up bonuses on top of bonuses along the way, until you reach the end of a lifestyle tree. The bonuses aren't all that amazing or overpowered for the lifestyle traits: +3 diplomacy, +10 attraction and +10 for same-trait opinion for having the "socializer" trait from inviting people to 'carousing'. It blocks you out of earning other lifestyle traits. Choose wisely. (and once you get the trait, any +1 or +2 diplomacy modifiers leading up to that are removed, not stacked)
And today, I had a battle in CK2, and I lost.
I lost a battle.
And those armies don't refill in a month. I underestimated the enemy and didn't pay much attention to setting my commanders up properly. You don't even have to think about that in CK3. [Monkey click big number. Get banana.] Cost me the war and had me raging.
But when I come back to Ck3 everything is waaaay too predictable.
Last edited:
- 16
- 10
- 3
The biggest issue CK3 has is the way everything snowballs.
If I have 6 castle baronies in my personal possession, I don't really need the bonuses for stationing my MaA.
If I'm already sitting at 26 diplomacy, I don't really need '+1% prestige for every knight' or the extra +1.00 prestige per month for the "August" trait.
If I'm at 20 martial and my stationed MaA are already crushing everything I come up against, I don't really need extra MaA counter effectiveness (you can't even tell at that point) or the ability to cross rivers/fords without penalty. Go ahead and hide in the mountains on the other side of that river, with your defensive advantage bonus.
Go ahead and include all of the things that stack with fame/piety level. Leave everyone else in the dust.
I certainly don't need my original adventurer character to write a book that gives his descendants 40% faster lifestyle learning. Adventurers are just broken, haha.
If I have 6 castle baronies in my personal possession, I don't really need the bonuses for stationing my MaA.
If I'm already sitting at 26 diplomacy, I don't really need '+1% prestige for every knight' or the extra +1.00 prestige per month for the "August" trait.
If I'm at 20 martial and my stationed MaA are already crushing everything I come up against, I don't really need extra MaA counter effectiveness (you can't even tell at that point) or the ability to cross rivers/fords without penalty. Go ahead and hide in the mountains on the other side of that river, with your defensive advantage bonus.
Go ahead and include all of the things that stack with fame/piety level. Leave everyone else in the dust.
I certainly don't need my original adventurer character to write a book that gives his descendants 40% faster lifestyle learning. Adventurers are just broken, haha.
Last edited:
- 15