The gameplay focus on stacking stats and modifiers runs counter to the core design philosophy of Crusader Kings 3

[Ambion Iskariot]

If they would change the opinion system, even only with game rule options, they would have to redo the whole system how they made opinions work.
Only two examples: You get a penalty for different culture but you get a bonus for same heritage or speaking the same language.
Or all muslims get -5 to each other which can be overcome by hadsh.
Now you would get the whole muslim penalty but no more bonus if you already get bonus from lifestyle? This make no sense and diplomacy lifestyle even more worthless.
And the above example with killing whole dinasties if you start to kill a single one (what often enough makes my game difficult if my hire killed somebody without even restricted opinion as you all seem to like): what if they started to kill somebody from your dinasty, what muslims can do even with close family in this game (and how some heritage systems worked IRL).
I do not like the whole idea. I would more likely get rid of breeding which is totaly ahistorical and source of many superstats people first present with pride and then frustration because the game seems to be to easy to them. But boy it is very different if you play an emperor whose realm will almost never crush or if you play on of his little neighbors.

 

[Pendables]

Honestly I like stacking stats. CK3 should be a game about building up your dynasty and realm over generations. The balance is way wrong but I don't think the concepts are bad.

 

[ray243]

Honestly I like stacking stats. CK3 should be a game about building up your dynasty and realm over generations. The balance is way wrong but I don't think the concepts are bad.

It should be done in a way that has challenge rather than the game becoming increasingly boring the longer you campaign goes. Late game it's so easy to ensure your dynasty can stay in power with all the stats that even if you go into observe mode, they stay in power forever.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

It should be done in a way that has challenge rather than the game becoming increasingly boring the longer you campaign goes. Late game it's so easy to ensure your dynasty can stay in power with all the stats that even if you go into observe mode, they stay in power forever.

When you can go from a count to a king in the first ruler's lifetime, using the most difficult starting location you can imagine, I don't even make it to late-game without getting bored.

 

[ray243]

When you can go from a count to a king in the first ruler's lifetime, using the most difficult starting location you can imagine, I don't even make it to late-game without getting bored.

Which is a shame because I think people would want to enjoy a long campaign and watch history develop if it's actually engaging to play long term.

 

[Voidian]

Which is a shame because I think people would want to enjoy a long campaign and watch history develop if it's actually engaging to play long term.

Specially in a game about multiple generations

 

[Benismann]

When you can go from a count to a king in the first ruler's lifetime, using the most difficult starting location you can imagine, I don't even make it to late-game without getting bored.

You meant emperor? Because you go to emperor. And probably also do an ideal culture you want and an ideal faith you want and also build tall while conquering wide... You just do everything everywhere at once, all as the first character. Maybe second if the first one dies in their 30s somehow.

 

[ShepherdOfCats]

You meant emperor? Because you go to emperor. And probably also do an ideal culture you want and an ideal faith you want and also build tall while conquering wide... You just do everything everywhere at once, all as the first character. Maybe second if the first one dies in their 30s somehow.

Given the way the AI fails to keep up with players, if you reach king, it's likely you're already as powerful as an emperor. The new empire-creation mechanics help, but it's a band-aid.

I know people roll their eyes at the CK2/CK3 comparisons, but . . .

These last few days as I'm playing CK2 after a loooong while, I really think the devs of CK3 need to look back at CK2 and examine some of the things they did right. I don't mean like, "make the same game all over again" but for certain things, the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.

Combat was better balanced in CK2. I think comparing the two games so long after CK3's been released, I feel confident saying that. I'm on a new Ck2 playthrough now, and every war is a gamble. The AI might have even been smarter than what we have now, even though it still did things that make you want to pull your hair out. It forces the player to exercise conservative expansion—for the sake of survival, not for the sake of restraining yourself because you don't want to peak too soon and get bored. The AI was a whole lot more opportunistic, much quicker to declare war on you if it saw that you were tied up in another war.

There are times when I honestly fear my neighbor declaring war on me. I want to seek out practical alliances. Starting as the count of Jinquan at the 769 start (one of the hardest CK2 starts, IMO, due to lack of expansion options), it took me 4 rulers and about 75 years just to get my first duchy. That's something you can usually do within the first 10 years in CK3 (especially with the absurd mechanic related to legitimacy where you only need a 3rd of a duchy to create the title). I don't like living under the Protector General, but, I kind of need him. I need him to be strong, to protect me from those silly host-raiders (not my favorite CK2 mechanic) and those nomadic horse lords to the north, and the Empire of Tibet to the south. And . . . my liege is my best shot at getting another title. That kind of gameplay almost forces the player to want to be loyal to the liege. It gives you a reason, other than just roleplay. I could do this same start, 3 times in a row, and end up having to use a completely different strategy. It forces the player to think. "What are the cards I'm dealt, and how can I use them?"

A lot of it, frankly, is luck and circumstances, waiting for your best chance to exploit an opportunity to expand. You're just a count, and CK2 captures that feeling of weakness and helplessness in a way that CK3 fails to do so. (but the sense of accomplishment when you finally rank up is HUGE)

 

[Benismann]

it took me 4 rulers and about 75 years just to get my first duchy

I'll just add that 75 years might not even be 2 rulers "worth" of time in ck3....

 

[ray243]

Specially in a game about multiple generations

People talk about Basil becoming emperor in just one lifetime but it's also very much a set of unique circumstances.

 

[wthree]

Given the way the AI fails to keep up with players, if you reach king, it's likely you're already as powerful as an emperor. The new empire-creation mechanics help, but it's a band-aid.

I know people roll their eyes at the CK2/CK3 comparisons, but . . .

Honestly, every time I go back to CK2, I'm reminded how many things feel like a downgrade in 3. The UI is a big one for starters.
But it goes beyond that, because of the nature of the systems in place, characters feel very "samey" with your biggest interaction with your own character being what lifestyle you pick, which is just very...methodical.
But the randomness in CK2 ended up telling far more interesting stories: that "ideal" heir slowly becoming a sinful layabout, or the unlikely heir turning things around and becoming a true paragon.
Then you have warfare, with CBs being thrown around like nothing, which is a problem considering how unbelievable horrible the war system is. I dont know if it's everyone's experience, but warfare feel frustrating, not difficult. Like you're constantly battling an unfriendly UI which ducking and diving a constant barrage of KWAAPPAWWWWWWS as another event pops up because your son's friend's neigbour's dog wore a silly hat.
That wasnt the case in 2.

 

[ProfHardknocks]

I feel the solution could be clear, even if unpleasant: all of these modifiers should be grouped into categories based on a few considerations. Then, have modifiers within the same category Overlap instead of Stack. I would also favor NOT requiring categories (cheat traits, modifiers, traits where it should always stack the bonus, etc). Each category might have a different cap of what bonuses it can apply to a given area.

Regarding the whole killed your father thing - I think there should be a few pressures. If someone hates their father or is their enemy or rival or has negative opinion, they should probably not hate the killer beyond what is publicly required of them to. They might talk mad at the bar, but tell their schemers "no, just let it go, we're not actually mad".

 

[Amina144]

This is not even CK3 problem at this point, its the whole strategy game genre suffers from it.

 

[StMaurice]

Completely disagree since I as a player should not be penalized for mitigating risk and taking calculated risk (just like in real life). But it seems paradox agrees with you because the game has gotten worse and is completely unplayable now imo. Not really sure how this is mutually exclusive from "storytelling" and etc. You seem to have a very strong and narrow opinion on what that means.

 

[ray243]

Completely disagree since I as a player should not be penalized for mitigating risk and taking calculated risk (just like in real life). But it seems paradox agrees with you because the game has gotten worse and is completely unplayable now imo. Not really sure how this is mutually exclusive from "storytelling" and etc. You seem to have a very strong and narrow opinion on what that means.

Taking risk should be if you made decisions that don't pay off and there's trade off. Currently there's not a lot of trade off to be had for decision making or risk taking.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Completely disagree since I as a player should not be penalized for mitigating risk and taking calculated risk (just like in real life). But it seems paradox agrees with you because the game has gotten worse and is completely unplayable now imo. Not really sure how this is mutually exclusive from "storytelling" and etc. You seem to have a very strong and narrow opinion on what that means.

How has it been made unplayable? Stat stacking is still common

 

[peteoj]

I'll just add that 75 years might not even be 2 rulers "worth" of time in ck3....

75 years is an average rulers lifetime because pdx doesn't tweak health and modifiers so your average player can just coast by and rarely ever worry about their lives. Doesn't help that you're effectively invincible when leading armies so your life isn't even in danger when in bloody war which is kinda funny because it means your life is 100% more dangerous when you're going on a stroll and traveling around than actively being steeped in violent hand to hand battle.

 

[Benismann]

Completely disagree since I as a player should not be penalized for mitigating risk and taking calculated risk (just like in real life). But it seems paradox agrees with you because the game has gotten worse and is completely unplayable now imo. Not really sure how this is mutually exclusive from "storytelling" and etc. You seem to have a very strong and narrow opinion on what that means.

If anything, how easy and OP everything is detract from storytelling, coz the only story you can tell in ck3 while pressing buttons is second coming of Alexander the Great. There can never be a threat or conflict, and thus never any story that relies on their existing (and most stories do).

 

[Ral Rednaxela]

I think the game needs to be rebalanced with the law of Conservation of Energy in mind. For every positive modifier, there should be an equal and opposite negative modifier. Not the exact same modifier, but everything needs to be treated like an exchange of energy instead of creating energy out of thin air. There's too much stuff in the game now that's all upside and exponential growth, no matter what you do.

 

[kgptzac]

The core design of these games by PDX is to fulfill players' power fantasy, and I am quite fond of unbound growth of my might as I play for hundreds of years in the game. If you don't want to become too powerful, you can always choose to restart the game and play shorter campaigns, which is a valid playstyle and well accommodated, by the likes of Haesteinn. You always have additional challenges, like partition succession laws. For me, I quite enjoy the reward of having endured those shitty succession laws, enacted superior ones, and snowball into the greatest entity on the map.

Obviously there are a few modifiers that should have a cap, such as the life expectancy from multiple legendary shrines. But this is a matter of finetuning for the sake of balance.