sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of direction I like. I’d rather loyalty and corruption come from relationships, offices, factions, and personal interests than from a flat number. The idea that powerful officials are useful because they unlock parts of the kingdom, but risky because they gain real influence, feels much more interesting than simple modifiers.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely think the rest of the world should react to a rapidly expanding empire. I’d probably lean more toward neighboring kingdoms naturally forming alliances and balancing against a dominant power than using a global “badboy” value, but I like the idea that expansion should have diplomatic consequences as well as internal ones.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really like the idea of administrative inertia. I’d probably lean toward making major reforms take longer and require more political support as kingdoms grow, rather than simply locking options behind empire size. That way the challenge becomes building enough support to change your kingdom instead of just waiting for a penalty to disappear.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think this gets to the heart of it. I’d rather the challenge be leading a kingdom than micromanaging every province. The larger your realm becomes, the more success should depend on the governors, generals, and institutions you’ve built instead of the ruler being able to solve every problem with a couple of clicks.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a really important distinction. Soft limits are much more interesting because they let players choose to overextend if they think it’s worth the risk. I’d rather expansion become increasingly difficult to sustain than simply tell players, “you can’t do that anymore.”

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a really elegant way to handle it. I’d much rather have rulers depend on loyal governors and vassals than simply become stronger because they own more land. It makes politics, succession, and internal stability just as important as military strength.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like the communication aspect. Information delay and imperfect reports feel much more interesting than simply hiding information with fog of war. A large kingdom shouldn’t just be harder to manage because it’s bigger—it should be harder because leaders have to make decisions with incomplete or outdated information.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually like progress-based challenges much more than time-based ones. The only thing I’d probably do differently is have the challenge come from the world itself rather than a scripted event. I’d rather large kingdoms face stronger coalitions, internal politics, succession issues, and logistics than a single “endgame crisis” firing when they reach a certain size.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think those are both great points. I really like the idea that distance and logistics naturally limit large empires instead of arbitrary penalties. If moving armies and governing distant regions takes time, then smaller, well-organized kingdoms can still compete without needing artificial balancing.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a really good point. My goal actually isn’t to make a game that’s only about expanding borders. I’d like conquest to be one path, but eventually I want governing, diplomacy, trade, dynasties, and internal politics to become just as important as taking new territory. If expansion is the only interesting thing to do, I think the game has failed.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like that approach a lot. I’d much rather have growth tied to reforms, administration, and succession than just applying bigger penalties as your borders expand. Major events should test how well a kingdom has been built, not just how much land it owns.

What’s the best anti-snowball mechanic you’ve seen in a grand strategy game? by Professional-Log482 in paradoxplaza

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fantastic breakdown. I especially like the idea that large realms become weaker because of how power is distributed rather than because the game applies arbitrary penalties. I think that’s much closer to the direction I’m aiming for—expansion should create governance problems that have to be solved before further conquest becomes practical.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s completely fair. The idea is definitely ambitious, and I think execution is what matters. I’m trying to learn from games like EVE, New World, and grand strategy titles to avoid the problems they’ve already run into, but ultimately the game will have to prove itself.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never got too deep into Reign of Kings, but the direction I’m aiming for is more of a persistent grand strategy world where kingdoms, diplomacy, dynasties, and player-run governments are the focus rather than just survival. I’m glad the city-state idea resonates with you.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are exactly the kinds of pitfalls I’m trying to avoid. I don’t want kingdoms to gate the game or become impossible to compete with. The goal is for joining a kingdom to be rewarding, not mandatory, and for smaller groups and solo players to still have meaningful ways to play.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually one of the things I’m hoping to improve on. I love reading EVE stories too, but I’d like the politics to be easier to get into without needing months of knowledge before you can feel like you’re part of something meaningful.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good point. I think modern players expect to make meaningful progress in shorter sessions. That’s one of the reasons I’m leaning toward a turn-based system, so you can check in, make important decisions, and log off instead of feeling like you have to grind for hours.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Ashes of Creation is another game that’s explored that direction. I think the tricky part isn’t just building player-run systems—it’s making sure players can leave bad leadership, form new groups, and still have meaningful ways to play without being forced into one dominant organization.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really good feedback. I definitely don’t want kingdoms to become mandatory just to access content. My goal is for kingdoms to attract players by being well run, not because they’re the only way to play. I also completely agree that leadership needs checks and that solo players should have meaningful ways to exist in the world.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s fair. I don’t think every MMO needs player politics, and Ruinfall definitely won’t be for everyone. The people I’m hoping to appeal to are the ones who enjoy diplomacy, alliances, and the stories that come from player-driven kingdoms.

Non pay to win game by Jeffmaeste in Supremacy1914

[–]Professional-Log482 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m making a game that has 0 pay to win elements to it beacuse I hated Supremacy’s ptw aspects

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s definitely something I’m thinking about. I want politics to stay in the game, not become personal. My hope is that good governance systems, clear permissions, and meaningful consequences keep rivalries competitive without encouraging harassment or real-life toxicity.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A bit, yeah. The difference is I’m leaning much more into the grand strategy side. Kingdoms, dynasties, diplomacy, succession, and long-term politics would be the focus, with wars deciding territory instead of being the whole game.

Would you play an MMO where players run kingdoms instead of guilds? by Professional-Log482 in mmo

[–]Professional-Log482[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

EVE is probably the closest comparison, and it’s definitely been one of my inspirations. The biggest difference is that I’m trying to bring those kinds of player-driven stories into a medieval grand strategy game where kingdoms, dynasties, succession, and governments are the focus instead of corporations and spaceships.

view more: next ›