Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

I think that's more due to player competence than fundamental easiness of dynasties to survive, though. AI controlled dynasties that started large go extinct frequently, and in the course of a game the player is liable to personally be responsible for dozens of small dynasties going extinct. It's just that players are usually smarter about marriages, utilize intrigue better, lose fewer wars, and rarely lose all of their territory (unless they're trying for a masochistic start). The AI also doesn't care as much about having an out-of-dynasty heir, given that players are supposed to do everything they can to keep it from happening.

I would say it's very difficult to have a game be unbalanced enough against the player to be compelling without resorting to ham-fisted restrictions that create more frustration. And if you want to have players and AI play by the same rules, which most games don't even attempt, it's more difficult to keep that balance between the extremes of player domination and frustration. In EUIV in particular, my enjoyment is more about finding a starting nation that provides a challenge and goal, and having the mechanics provide a way of meeting it without making the whole thing trivial. And for the most part, it works, but they do mess up really often with balance changes. Thankfully modding is extremely easy.

[a1s]

I agree with you on EU IV but CK 2, at least however many months ago when I played it regularly, never struck me as over-prioritizing balance. 

Is this the same EU we had long discussions on white western domination about? The one which deliberately has some nations be "Lucky", and then when instructed to choose fairly picks the same ones anyway, even though they're already ahead of the curve thanks to "unique" national ideas? That EU IV? Yup balance was the dev team's core goal.

[EnigmaticHat]

I agree with you on EU IV but CK 2, at least however many months ago when I played it regularly, never struck me as over-prioritizing balance. 

Is this the same EU we had long discussions on white western domination about? The one which deliberately has some nations be "Lucky", and then when instructed to choose fairly picks the same ones anyway, even though they're already ahead of the curve thanks to "unique" national ideas? That EU IV? Yup balance was the dev team's core goal.

That is still prioritizing balance though, in a really stupid way.  Its going "France succeeded in history, better make sure France succeeds in our game" rather than "let's make sure our game supports the factors that caused France to succeed in history."  They're balancing towards the effects rather than user experience or even (as they claim) multiplayer balance.  They THINK they're balancing for multiplayer but let's be honest, no multiplayer game this late in its lifespan could upend game mechanics as often as the EU IV devs do.

Its the same way they're like "people can expand too fast, let's just double the fucking truce timer."  It achieves the RESULT of slowing expansion, but it shows no understanding of why expansion may have been too easy in the first place, nor is it actually fun.

It would be like if the TF2 devs saw that pyro was underpowered and, instead of thinking about it and then adding one key change (airblast), just went through a spreadsheet of all the weapon damages in the game and totally changed them all, then released it without sufficient explanation or testing.  Its still indicates a concern with balance, just... not an ability to do it right.

[ZeroGravitas]

Paradox's obsession with balance and fairness in a historical simulator is a blight on all their games. They didn't use to broke that shit, but now it's all "oh no, we can't possibly let you simply hire assassins, that gives unfair advantages to large powers! Multiplayer comes first! Mana points are the best abstraction of the historical reality! And no Jews! Oh, alright, you can have Jews if you stop whining. But only a little bit.".

Ugh, just ugh. They keep just enough of the good to not become terrible, but only just enough.

The Assassinate button has nothing to do balance. Or, at least, you can forget every argument about balance in regards to the Assassination button, and you'd still have plenty of reasons to remove it. It was obviated by newer mechanics (plots). It was unrealistic (instant, no cooldown, works anywhere in the world/diplo range, could even be used to assassinate generals in battle). It made numerous other mechanics pointless (inheritance, adventurers, wars on behalf of a foreign claimant).

Now, I think the "balance" arguments are good, too: it just made the game too easy. This is a game with totally absurd blobbing potential already. Anything that slows it down a little bit is fine.

Could "Assassinate" just have been "nerfed" without removing it outright? Yes. Are plots as "good" as "Assassinate"? No. But can plots be improved just like Assassinate could have been? Of course.

It was a stupid button that never should have been there and was wildly out of place.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yeah, all those people spending 250 gold to get a 40% chance to get caught with a 10% chance of success were seriously ruining the game's flow.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The assassinate button is a last resort.

[a1s]

Yeah, all those people spending 250 gold to get a 40% chance to get caught with a 10% chance of success were seriously ruining the game's flow.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The assassinate button is a last resort.

+1. Everything I wanted to say and edgier.

[ZeroGravitas]

Yeah, all those people spending 250 gold to get a 40% chance to get caught with a 10% chance of success were seriously ruining the game's flow.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The assassinate button is a last resort.

This is a ridiculous exaggeration. The only time you ever saw a 40% chance to get caught was when you fired your spymaster to try and get caught on purpose.

Which, in fact, was another way the Assassinate button was stupid: it allowed you to provoke retaliatory assassinations by purposefully failing assassinations, so that you could choose when succession would take place.

In reality, it was way more common to get 0% chance to be caught when trying to assassinate your own newborn babies, making different succession laws pointless. Primogeniture was just strictly worse than gavelkind if you could guarantee you would only ever have one son, and/or pick when you died.

[Satarus]

I think I used the assassinate button more as an abdicate button than anything else.  Getting old and want my heir to take over in the prime of his youth?  Fire my spymaster, open up the character finder, and look for the highest intrigue ruler outside my realm.  250 gold later and my heir is on the throne.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Which, in fact, was another way the Assassinate button was stupid: it allowed you to provoke retaliatory assassinations by purposefully failing assassinations, so that you could choose when succession would take place.

Yeah, the AI dynamically responding to things and actually retaliating is game breaking.

[ZeroGravitas]

I think I used the assassinate button more as an abdicate button than anything else.  Getting old and want my heir to take over in the prime of his youth?  Fire my spymaster, open up the character finder, and look for the highest intrigue ruler outside my realm.  250 gold later and my heir is on the throne.

Not even that hard: you could provoke retaliation assassinations by trying to assassinate anybody, even a lowbown, for only 50g.

[ZeroGravitas]

Which, in fact, was another way the Assassinate button was stupid: it allowed you to provoke retaliatory assassinations by purposefully failing assassinations, so that you could choose when succession would take place.

Yeah, the AI dynamically responding to things and actually retaliating is game breaking.

"dynamically responding to things"? It was a dice roll with a 1000-1 chance in favor of an automatic assassinate-back:

Code: [Select]

option = {
trigger = {
NOT = { same_realm = FROMFROM }
FROM = {
FROM = {
NOT = { has_opinion_modifier = { who = ROOT  modifier = i_attempted_murder } }
}
}
}
name = "EVTOPTC40020" # Someone in another realm.
ai_chance = {
factor = 1000
}

FROM = { FROM = { opinion = { who = ROOT modifier = i_attempted_murder months = 2 } } }

send_assassin = FROMFROM
}
option = {
name = "EVTOPTD40020" #we dont dare do anything..  (player option, incase of worry.)
ai_chance = {
factor = 1
}
piety = 5
}

[Rolan7]

Yeah, all those people spending 250 gold to get a 40% chance to get caught with a 10% chance of success were seriously ruining the game's flow.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The assassinate button is a last resort.

This is a ridiculous exaggeration. The only time you ever saw a 40% chance to get caught was when you fired your spymaster to try and get caught on purpose.

Which, in fact, was another way the Assassinate button was stupid: it allowed you to provoke retaliatory assassinations by purposefully failing assassinations, so that you could choose when succession would take place.

In reality, it was way more common to get 0% chance to be caught when trying to assassinate your own newborn babies, making different succession laws pointless. Primogeniture was just strictly worse than gavelkind if you could guarantee you would only ever have one son, and/or pick when you died.

This doesn't match my recollection...  I always seemed to have tiny success chances and large discovery chances, even against landless courtesans in my realm who pissed me off.  I did write the mechanic off as nigh-useless pretty quick, though.  Maybe some factor was making the odds poor.

I do hate that adventurers were immune to it once they spawned.  Wow I hate adventurers.  In retrospect I kinda stopped playing after that adventurer ruined my Norse England game.  Fricken event troops...  And now I'm worried about playing again because I hear retinues are nerfed.  Raising levies for every little revolt may be realistic, but it sounds so tedious.  I should actually give it a go instead of complaining, though.

[Rakonas]

As it stands there's no way to use money to assassinate someone anymore. You can almost never assassinate someone unless they're the same religion as you, either, because of infidel opinion modifiers. If Paradox added a way for plots to include hired assassins then it would work, but as it stands removing the assassination feature was terrible.

[PanH]

Which, in fact, was another way the Assassinate button was stupid: it allowed you to provoke retaliatory assassinations by purposefully failing assassinations, so that you could choose when succession would take place.

Yeah, the AI dynamically responding to things and actually retaliating is game breaking.

"dynamically responding to things"? It was a dice roll with a 1000-1 chance in favor of an automatic assassinate-back:

Code: [Select]

option = {
trigger = {
NOT = { same_realm = FROMFROM }
FROM = {
FROM = {
NOT = { has_opinion_modifier = { who = ROOT  modifier = i_attempted_murder } }
}
}
}
name = "EVTOPTC40020" # Someone in another realm.
ai_chance = {
factor = 1000
}

FROM = { FROM = { opinion = { who = ROOT modifier = i_attempted_murder months = 2 } } }

send_assassin = FROMFROM
}
option = {
name = "EVTOPTD40020" #we dont dare do anything..  (player option, incase of worry.)
ai_chance = {
factor = 1
}
piety = 5
}

There's this event (which has some conditions to it happening) which can happen to AI and player and there's also the AI sending assassins back (not by event).

[EnigmaticHat]

Did anyone even use the assassinate button for its intended purpose before?  Gifts for plotting and invite/marriage shenanigans was always cheaper and safer.