|
Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:29 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:59 |
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? Dehumanize yourself and face to POPs
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:32 |
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? when you can't tell a good move from a bad move ahead of time it's not possible to play badly
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:33 |
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? Most players don’t understand the games they play. Only really hardcore players understand games in the way people want to understand Vicky. It’s honestly kind of weird.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:34 |
|
Seriously, though, Victoria 2 is cool because it offers you a look at the regular people of your country moreso than any other Paradox game. CK2 may have deep characters, but it only represents the elite of your country. The only interaction you have with anyone who isn't part of the ruling class comes from random events. In EU4 and HoI4, you're basically painting a map, and your people are kind of a means to that end. Vicky 2 is different, though. In Vicky 2, you paint the map for the sake of your people, not the other way around. You can see exactly how your policies affect the day-to-day lives of your people. Your population has their own ideologies and complex reasons for following them. I love Vicky 2 despite it being a janky, broken mess because The People are the most important part of the game, not the state. This degree of simulation tickles the little megalomaniacal part of my brain better than any other Paradox game.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:41 |
|
i never got pops to be anything but numbers to be manipulated until they're better numbers tbh it's me. i'm the industrial monster
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:49 |
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? in the victorian era nobody understood the economy except marx and horrible decisions were made because of it it's more authentic to the period to have everyone desperately stumbling around grabbing random colonies to try to get the market to go their way, with a vague understanding of the mechanics but a lot of unseen pitfalls to fall into also
|
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:59 |
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? rember when u were a kid and get we're all these strange unknown things and u didn't know enough about them to guess plot twists or common gameplay elements so it was like working out a puzzle It's like that but with imperialism
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 01:59 |
|
Jazerus posted:in the victorian era nobody understood the economy except marx and horrible decisions were made because of it Amen, sir, amen. I too worship at the church of Marx.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 02:19 |
|
Jazerus posted:in the victorian era nobody understood the economy except marx and horrible decisions were made because of it That sounds awful.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 02:42 |
|
not knowing what you're doing puts a pretty loving significant end of life on your game, which is either determined by "when they figure out" or "when they're too frustrated to keep caring". These "ideas" really miss the mark on what makes a game like Victoria so much fun. However I'm 100% in favor of the next Victoria being all about fermenting a proletarian revolution in a country. EDIT: yes, it's more realistic for it to work this way, but that's not..really an argument. Beamed fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jul 26, 2018 |
# ? Jul 26, 2018 02:51 |
|
Pakled posted:Seriously, though, Victoria 2 is cool because it offers you a look at the regular people of your country moreso than any other Paradox game. CK2 may have deep characters, but it only represents the elite of your country. The only interaction you have with anyone who isn't part of the ruling class comes from random events. In EU4 and HoI4, you're basically painting a map, and your people are kind of a means to that end. Vicky 2 is different, though. In Vicky 2, you paint the map for the sake of your people, not the other way around. You can see exactly how your policies affect the day-to-day lives of your people. Your population has their own ideologies and complex reasons for following them. I love Vicky 2 despite it being a janky, broken mess because The People are the most important part of the game, not the state. This degree of simulation tickles the little megalomaniacal part of my brain better than any other Paradox game. Yeah, I absolutely love that demographic aspect, there's no other series quite like it. It serves quite well as a perfunctory introduction to the sociology of the era it's set in. What I like about Vicky in general is its tight thematical focus on industrialisation and the rise of the nation-state - if game length is a little short because of that, so be it. That's probably what some people are afraid of when it comes to Imperator, it being just another map-painting game, EUIV set in antiquity. That they decided on a fairly early end date is an encouraging sign.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 06:48 |
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why does everyone want to play a game that they can't understand so badly? If you can UNDERSTAND the market you can CONTROL the market, and i like that in vicky 2 You Can't Control The Market.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 09:40 |
|
The thing about the market irl is that everyone else is reacting in real-time along with you and that would make for a cool game if your most profitable factories became useless because everyone else jumped on the same train and you have to decide whether to slap a tariff, subsidize, diversify etc. Going to war over my neighbor's dildo tariff wrecking my dildo-based economy.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 10:00 |
I honestly think Vicky 2 is too long, at least at the end - it should run to 1920, not all the way to 1936. It doesn't really handle the rise of fascism and the world economy in that period as well as earlier, and the jankyness becomes more apparent. Possibly should start earlier, around 1820 so you get the full transition from the Napleonic and a bit more room for alt-history.
|
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 10:17 |
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:I honestly think Vicky 2 is too long, at least at the end - it should run to 1920, not all the way to 1936. It doesn't really handle the rise of fascism and the world economy in that period as well as earlier, and the jankyness becomes more apparent. Possibly should start earlier, around 1820 so you get the full transition from the Napleonic and a bit more room for alt-history. As for the start date, I'd push it back to 1750 - just because that allows for so much more alternate history, while having a really solid core of Vicky-thematically appropriate history. Like, the French Revolution seems precisely the kind of poo poo that should be in Victoria, and if you can make the lead up and aftermath enjoyable too then you've basically created 80% of the game systems that are required to make the long 19th century enjoyable.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 14:15 |
|
The systems required to properly represent the 1750's and the systems required to represent the 1920's are so incredibly and massively different that there is zero chance you could ever fit them into one single game. The pace of technological change is just so massive that you'd need to basically build about three entirely different games and then just package them together as "one." Just to give the example that immediately springs to mind, a combat system designed to represent dudes standing in lines shooting smoothbore muskets cannot ever in a trillion years do machine guns and tanks and planes well, and vice versa, so major fundamentals about how the game works would have to change halfway through to the point that it's really just a new game if it's going to be at all fun to play. I never really got why some people are so into moving the start date back, 1836 is already a bit early for a game where the focus is really supposed to be the peak of the Industrial Revolution/Victorian Era/1880's-1910's. The world economy went through massive and total paradigm shifts just from 1836-1936 that the game has trouble with, trying to go back even further to the even more massively different world economy of the 1750's would completely destroy any chance of it being good. 1836 is certainly acceptable and it was probably a smart idea to set it early enough to include the Springtime of Nations and all that, but I wouldn't go any earlier. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 26, 2018 |
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:02 |
|
I feel like the absolute earliest you could push back Vicky's start date would be post-Waterloo, and even that's a bit of a stretch.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:18 |
|
Love too experience the incredible jank that stems from any Modern Day Mods in various Paradox games, and seeing modders try to kludge the space race into Vicky 2 or nukes into EU4
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:21 |
|
pretty sure you can simulate the chaos of the world economy by just making it unpredictable and influenced by tons of external and internal forces without making it impossible to understand what's going on like the board game john company about the EIC has an insanely simple economic simulation (put down money for goods and ships, send those ships to territories to satisfy demand) but there's tons of calculated risks (semi-random events that can cause rebellions or depressions to gently caress up trade, trade missions require an outlay of money to increase chance of success) and multiple interest groups (different players jockeying for position in the company- trying to make their department profitable and gently caress around with other peoples' and maybe crash the company if they think they'd do better after deregulation, plus 'ai' indian empires running around conquering territory) so it winds up going all over the place
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:26 |
|
A bit late to the conversation but like, I don’t understand why people are saying you need to fully understand a game to enjoy it. Can you not play Hearts of Iron before you look up the specific minutia of how combat resolves? Is it not enough to know that “more attack is better”? You don’t need to fully understand Victoria 2’s economy to understand that “oh there’s a shortage of machine parts and that’s why all my factories are failing”. Like even with Vicky 2’s kind of poor presentation of data that level of detail is still easy enough to get.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:26 |
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:A bit late to the conversation but like, I don’t understand why people are saying you need to fully understand a game to enjoy it. Can you not play Hearts of Iron before you look up the specific minutia of how combat resolves? Is it not enough to know that “more attack is better”? You don’t need to fully understand Victoria 2’s economy to understand that “oh there’s a shortage of machine parts and that’s why all my factories are failing”. Like even with Vicky 2’s kind of poor presentation of data that level of detail is still easy enough to get. I have a really bad habit of min/maxing if I can and it ends up sucking a lot of the more organic fun out of the game. I literally can't play CK2 the same way I did 3 or 4 years ago because I know way too much about breeding uber-heirs and abusing systems to expand my empire. It's kind of sad, but since no one has figured out how to min-max Vicky 2 it's still always a fun, exciting experience.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:35 |
|
what if, you had a system that was understandable, and also not brokenly easy to exploit
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:43 |
|
StashAugustine posted:what if, you had a system that was understandable, and also not brokenly easy to exploit what if instead of that lame rear end poo poo we had multiple economic models included and pick one to activate at random at the start of each game
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:46 |
|
Agean90 posted:what if instead of that lame rear end poo poo we had multiple economic models included and pick one to activate at random at the start of each game also it switches throughout the game
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:49 |
|
Arrhythmia posted:also it switches throughout the game You can also research economic techs which will show more information about the economic system but it's not guaranteed to be accurate or even working on the same model early on
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:51 |
|
Agean90 posted:You can also research economic techs which will show more information about the economic system but it's not guaranteed to be accurate or even working on the same model early on This would be awesome. Model the uncertainty and amateur theories of early economics where some of the info is right and some is wrong, have it culminate either with Marx writing Das Kapital or Keyens where you finally have a complete picture of what's going on.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 15:57 |
|
If it can also model stateless societies (endgame goal to create a strong nationstate with the #1 industry then dissolve it ) it would become the bestest game
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 16:04 |
|
StashAugustine posted:what if, you had a system that was understandable, and also not brokenly easy to exploit Are you talking about V2 or people's wishes for V3?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 16:04 |
|
And all the constants it uses are randomized.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 16:11 |
|
Senor Dog posted:Are you talking about V2 or people's wishes for V3? does v2 strike you as understandable or difficult to exploit?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 17:10 |
|
StashAugustine posted:does v2 strike you as understandable or difficult to exploit? yes
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 17:18 |
StashAugustine posted:does v2 strike you as understandable or difficult to exploit? don't need to understand anything beyond "put socialists in power ASAP" if you want to win the game much like real life tbh
|
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 17:22 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:The systems required to properly represent the 1750's and the systems required to represent the 1920's are so incredibly and massively different that there is zero chance you could ever fit them into one single game. The pace of technological change is just so massive that you'd need to basically build about three entirely different games and then just package them together as "one." Just to give the example that immediately springs to mind, a combat system designed to represent dudes standing in lines shooting smoothbore muskets cannot ever in a trillion years do machine guns and tanks and planes well, and vice versa, so major fundamentals about how the game works would have to change halfway through to the point that it's really just a new game if it's going to be at all fun to play. Crazycryodude posted:I never really got why some people are so into moving the start date back, 1836 is already a bit early for a game where the focus is really supposed to be the peak of the Industrial Revolution/Victorian Era/1880's-1910's. The world economy went through massive and total paradigm shifts just from 1836-1936 that the game has trouble with, trying to go back even further to the even more massively different world economy of the 1750's would completely destroy any chance of it being good. 1836 is certainly acceptable and it was probably a smart idea to set it early enough to include the Springtime of Nations and all that, but I wouldn't go any earlier. As for the focus being whichever one of those you choose, it doesn't have to be. Ideological struggle, nation building, and imperialism, seems like more of a core identity to me, and pushing the game back to 1750 gives you way more of that.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 18:15 |
|
Are we back on "Fantasize about Victoria III" chat? Oh goody! So I had an idea -- what if the spread of the Industrial Revolution was taken in an approach like the spread of institutions in EUIV? You could use more or less the same mechanics, with various sort of "components" of the Industrial Revolution spreading outwards from its historical starting spots.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 19:08 |
|
DrSunshine posted:Are we back on "Fantasize about Victoria III" chat? Oh goody! Instead of a tech tree just inventions and discoveries that pop-up and spread from province to province. Invention chance depends on literacy/education/infraestructure, some inventions are pre-requisite for the next. So, a mix of current EU4 and Stellaris
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 22:34 |
|
Release a game that spans 1820-1821. Then release a different game that spans 1821-1822 with different core mechanics. Repeat this 100 times. Absolutely no save file converters. Unique names and a dozen DLC for each.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 22:52 |
|
wukkar posted:Release a game that spans 1820-1821. Then release a different game that spans 1821-1822 with different core mechanics. Repeat this 100 times. Absolutely no save file converters. Unique names and a dozen DLC for each. Turns are based by the minute
|
# ? Jul 26, 2018 23:12 |
|
no, they're real-time games. as in real time
|
# ? Jul 27, 2018 01:10 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:59 |
|
Flavius Aetass posted:no, they're real-time games. as in real time Turns based by Planck time
|
# ? Jul 27, 2018 01:45 |