Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Has anyone definitely dropped out yet besides mleugie (due to his connection issues)? I haven't seen Manik, FACE, or mkenyon during the last few games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Europa Universalis IV MP Community Thread of Swedish rail defeating armies - Part II
- Thread starter fanboi
- Start date
- Status
mkenyon dropped out and let Roboleon have Bavaria. No clue about Manik and FACE.
Zanger Rinus is the voice of a generation, you did well.
Will be even harder when Toma diplo-annexes them.
I saw some of his videos. Amazing dude, and well worth the ban that Roboleon got from it!
Yep, that will be the end for him unfortunately.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Then it was very nice of kab to pick Morocco...for FACE's sake, of course.
Well, I suppose at least the theme has switched away from mocking my failure as Gelre, that's something.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
At least Gelre is a really tough nation to play. I've failed as Brandenburg before.
I've failed as France.
I'd say picking another country. The later you pick one, the harder it's going to be to actually succeed as that new country, and Scotland is 100% screwed.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
FACE told me via Steam he'll be back next Sunday, he would have played this session but he had to help his mother last minute. It's just MANK whose status as Sweden is unconfirmed.
EDIT: Also, I'd definitely agree with Kab. If you asked MGO nicely, you could probably just switch to England, haly'd appreciate your help, I think.
EDIT: Also, I'd definitely agree with Kab. If you asked MGO nicely, you could probably just switch to England, haly'd appreciate your help, I think.
Yup, agreed. England is the choice to make here. Switching to England mid-game can definitely work for someone
.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I think MGO and KingSnake should just switch nations
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I support this movement.
Sounds good to me.
For.
Anyways, next time we need to get away from the terrible rules that guided the nation-picking this session. Like I suggested during the end of our first game, what we need is some kind of ranking system, where the player that we feel has done the worst, picks nation first in the next game and so on. And all nations are eligible to choose. No more getting stuck in India just because of other peoples choices in Europe, and also no more games where the good players get the big nations, and the less good get the nations where they inevitably will be destroyed. Or at least we can then say its their own fault for getting destroyed - more so than now when I and other players are just waiting to be dominated by players that are not first and foremost better players than us - but also and equally as important - started out in much better positions.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think we really had any rules aside from a) first come first served, and b) can't pick adjacent nations without consent. I agree that perhaps a 'ranking system' to steer good players away from better nations is a pretty good idea, but I still think we should keep no adjacencies without permission. For example, if I had been Denmark I would have D1'd haly immediately (sorry haly, no offence) - any player who starts in a stronger position than an adjacent player has a massive incentive to do so. Also, if we are doing 'nation power rankings', what metric would we use to sort them? And how do we sort conflicting choices when two players want the same nations, or adjacent nations but don't want to allow the other person there?
Do we just do first picks based on score from last time - worse you did, higher up the queue you get to go? Because I'm not so sure that would be successful - I didn't want to play either Novgorod or Aragon because they were powerful (otherwise I'd have picked Muscowy/Castile), but because they were enjoyable (aside from the four or five Wars of Religion in my Protestodoxolic Russia...). Players who get first pick may still choose from their own volition to pick smaller but enjoyable nations, so it ameliorates but doesn't solve the mgo-is-burgundy-fuuuuuuuuck problem.
Yeah, I know. But there is quite tough to pick a country at this point anyhow. In Europe everything from Brittany to Hungary is practically under MGO's rule. And to start at this point outside Europe is suicidal anyhow. I rather die first as Scotland and maybe play as a colonial nation (if I get a chance to start it). So I think at list on Wednesday I will play just one more session like this.
Again, pick England.
FACE and Kingsnake is!
Are the others fine with this?
If they were fine with you playing Scotland, they can be fine with you playing England, surely. Had you succeeded as Scotland you'd have ended up owning the exact same lands.
Not super objected to it (as in I wont be mad at whatever you guys want to do), but I am just saying that him failing as Scotland did impact tactical decisions from other players, which are hard to take back at this point since it might have resulted in other alliances/rivals for example over time. I am against people joining again with new countries, even if that might seem more fun overall, but I wouldnt have people rejoin if they fail once.
I see that this is less fun though as it keeps more people out eventually, but still... at some point you need to draw a line when not to admit people for new countries. Having no consistencies is kinda annoying in a competetive MP game, but we should probably make that a clear rule for the next round or something to not have KingSnake hating me forever =p
So yeah, my 2 cents, no big deal now, but I'd prefer future MP rounds having a rule for no country changes.
Yup, definitely fine by me.
Just to be clear, if the others are fine with it, I wouldnt mind you taking England this time or others switching their countries or whatever, but this is an issue that I already mentioned during our first MP session and I'd appreciate it being an actual rule for future games.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If you can make it to the colonies you're laughing - just abandon Europe all together.
I think it's against the rules to move the capital out of Europe. Or not?
Indeed, but if main Scotland falters, you can still just switch to your colonies. Just wait until England takes care of you.
Yeah, that's my plan. Let's see if I'm fast enough.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If you only have a single province remaining on your home continent, you can move your capital to a different one.
I was talking about our MP rules (it's in the OP). And I see that you already ended up in South America and Valhelm is already in NA, so I really fucked up my game by missing two sessions. Well, that's that.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, true. I'm personally willing to bend said rules, but I think some of the more competitive players will probably insist so we don't see runaway American empires in future games, which is what that is there for. Having said that, I have literally only just hit South America and I don't think that's Valhelm - looks like a native nation to me.
EDIT: Nope, it is Valhelm. Sucks, I guess.
I think this is where my view differs from yours. As it is now, there is no way to make the game really competitive in a StarCraft 2 or Dota-sense anyways, since so much is up to which nation you start with. Which means I am playing just for fun and not to be high in score - and its more fun to have Kingsnake (and others) to continue in the game. However, if we would change the rules, to make also the nation-picking more "fair" (if it ever can be), then I think you would have a good point and I might agree. As with how the game is now though, I think he should be able to choose to play England if he wants to.
This rule b is what I find stupid. To take your example, if such a situation would occur where Haly choose the Hansa and THEN you choose Denmark, it would just be poor planning by him - failing to consider in his choice the fact that somebody might be playing Denmark - and this not really unfair. First come/first serve or ranking-based system - either way picking a nation close to another or close to where you would suspect somebody else to end up, does involve a risk and for him to choose Hansa before Denmark might then just be potentially bad play. So what Haly should have done in this hypotetical situation, is not pick the Hansa in the first place if he was afraid of a potential human Denmark - and thus pick them instead. (or ofcourse, ally with a probably humanly controlled Sweden or something like that).
About the rankings, there is no good way of doing this, but I suggest that everybody who wants to, just ranks the other players (not themselves), and then we take the median ranking and use that to pick. New players could pick either first or last (same with me).
I sort of agree, that is the reason why I said I'd be fine with sticking with whatever rule people want to use this game, but then enforcing it as an integrated rule during any upcoming sessions, possibly in tandem with the country picking rule.
Its still a competetive game though. I mean, we are playing to expand and it IS about annihilating other players eventually, so I am definitely against people rejoining in future sessions and if we need to alter other rules to make it work (country choices), I dont particularly mind.
Also the "have all people vote the skill of others" is a cute idea, but I would like to keep my vote anonymous for several reasons and the first open vote WILL influence others so I'd say we shouldnt do open list voting on the skill of players as that will affect everyones personal judgment. I'd prefer having someone decently impartial and trustworthy (Kab gets my vote for that role) collecting all the votes and then presenting the results.
Or we could just use in-game points maybe? Do you have a decent suggestion?
Edit: See you edited your post, and yeah, I agree that is a much better way of doing it. Also, since Kab is usually playing, why dont ask that other mod that plays EU4 Thosedeafmutes or whatever his name is?
So does this mean I have to only play as a substitute for others for the entire game?
Lol!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree more with Morf than toma, here. Obviously I intend to dominate Europe and crush all of you peons beneath my well-heeled boots, but I want you to have fun while I dominate you.
I think this will backfire more than you expect. If you allow this policy, nobody will pick small nations, because they have no way to stop an immediate stomping. We'll just end up with France / Castile / England / Ottomans / Muscowy / Burgundy etc. every single session. That does not sound fun to me at all. Giving people a small but guaranteed theatre of war means people can try smaller nations without immediately having to worry about someone picking the behemoth next to them. Without that, there's just no incentive to, especially in a game that's quasi-competitive. I know this is true because I played a fair amount of competitive EU3, and at the start most players used to pick fairly quirky nations, but quickly we found ourselves being forced to the same old usual powers, because small player nations next to big player nations are just not an attractive prospect.
I'm still not sure that works. Say we have 12 players who decide to play again next session, and 4 of them are very good. Unless all 8 players before them definitely, 100%, chose each of the obviously key nations at game-start (England, France, Castile, Burgundy, Ottomans, Muscowy, Poland, etc), then there will definitely be one or two titans still floating around at the end of the pool, in which case you've not solved the problem. Unless you want new or poorly-scoring players to pick big nations every single time, which they might not want to when there's a smaller but more interesting nation, then a first-picks system is not enough to stop very good players getting very good nations.
I would like to try the voting experiment (I added more to my comment above that you quoted before I was done editing it), but only if we do it anonymous.
If anything, we'll be able to judge how that turned out and could do something else in another session if we all decide it was a shitty rule.
Maybe we could sorta do a tiered country pick? Tier 1: Castille, France, England, Austria Tier 2: Burgundy, Scotland, Denmark.. .etc and have people on the vote results only choose from their own tier or lower.
Meaning if we have 12 players, the first 3 COULD choose to use castille france england, but they dont necessarily need to, and the rest will not be able to take these countries at all. That would also mean we wouldnt necessarily end up with all the big players every time since there arent enough tier 1 and 2 players (6/12) to fill up all the bigger ones.
You said you don't want to play as the colonial nation of Scotland because of the weak ass tech.
Edit: Otherwise you could have already prepared that last session. And anyhow you can play as the Aragonese Brazil soon probably.
You said you don't want to play as the colonial nation of Scotland because of the weak ass tech.
I don't want to play as a subject colonial nation adjacent to a free colonial nation that I can't declare on etc. So if that's your choice, a colonial nation is out for me, which is totally fine of course, since it would mean you're not even technically switching countries.
Such exciting gameplay without native nations nearby.
I would support an independent Portuguese Quebec.
Pass. I'll play as a substitute.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So, I think a way to do it could be like this. At the end of every session, we anonymously rate a player's performance out of 10, and send those in to a neutral party. The neutral party averages the performance results to get a metric. However, we also anonymously rate how good a country's potential start is out of 10 [you could only list countries you think have a 6/10 start or better, any countries not listed are assumed to have been given a 5], and send those in to the same party. The neutral party averages the rating results to get a metric. Once done, we reveal player ratings and the country ratings. Players get to pick nations in order from worst to best, but the player score plus the country score can't exceed 15 - so, if my average performance is rated at 7.5/10, and if Aragon is considered an 8/10 nation, I can't play it. We also prevent players from starting within Fabricate Claim range of other players, abiding by the poorest score-first pick principle.
Over a number of sessions, assuming players play competitively, we should end up reaching an equilibrium, as everyone will trend towards a stable 15 total. After all, if someone exceeds their usual potential, their rating goes down, and they end up having to downgrade country.
I think we sorta should do the country rating as a thread effort, since that would be too much for everyone else to judge. There are how many countries? 200? Everyone voting for those individually is too much work. I only would like the actual player voting to be anonymous, but the rest could work if we juggle around with the numbers a bit.
- Status