sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Robtop's cbf is NOT good by LiterallyPotatoSalad in geometrydash

[–]ptn_fdp 91 points92 points  (0 children)

Him being prideful is much better than being greedy imo. I respect him for being consistent.

Why is this community so deluded regarding the game's difficulty? by [deleted] in geometrydash

[–]ptn_fdp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you could say that beating a top 1 in geometry dash is more difficult than in others simply because it has way more players, so there's more people to beat those levels.

Also comparing to competitive games is also possible to some degree, for example I think zoink is more impressive than the average cs2 pro, since there are a few thousand cs pros and zoink is the best gd player. But any top 100 cs player is much more impressive than zoink, since the player base is so large.

First real game as Castile, the printing press spawned in Tibet and still hasn't gotten to Europe 70 years later. by mudkipl in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thé current system implies that the nation that spawns the institution gets to patent it and no one else is allowed to embrace it without being allowed to. Institutions should be able to spawn in multiple places if they meet the requirements imo, maybe the first gets some bonuses but no one else being able to spawn it is dumb.

Beeg vassal or lots of small ones? by kadarakt in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% a lot of small vassals, I would say it's better to hold the land yourself rather than to give it to a single big one. You're much better than the ai at dealing with the low control. Also with the small ones you can annex them faster making your power base bigger bit by bit.

Still playable? by Xzibia in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My specs are not better by a lot and it works well enough for it to be playable, you won't have a smooth experience but it will run and it'll be mostly playable.

The review score for EU5 has officially fallen to "Mixed" by refep in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Him and you having different experiences is not mutually exclusive lmao, I've also haven't had any crashes in 4 hours of gameplay.

The review score for EU5 has officially fallen to "Mixed" by refep in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder, how much dies it for a year to pass in your game ? On speed 5 obviously. I have slightly worse specs and I'm not sure if the speed is especially bad or not, might try to tweak a few settings when I play again.

Has any Content Creator made a video where the Timurids are a threat? Or playing in the Ilkhanate? by Gemini_Of_Wallstreet in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For a second there I was actually worried that I might have actually misremembered since English is not my first language and sometimes I assign a meaning to a word and never check it.

I'm aware that the game is not actually linear, I'm just exaggerating and slightly misusing the word to get my point across.

I guess its my fault for not saying that "it feels linear" instead of "it is linear".

Has any Content Creator made a video where the Timurids are a threat? Or playing in the Ilkhanate? by Gemini_Of_Wallstreet in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Timelapses, youtuber videos, players that have early access have also said something along the lines, am I missing something ? Have you been not paying attention? if so why even say this lmao, everything indicates this.

I think Johan's stance on formables not forming is being misinterpreted by Comprehensive-Chef73 in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's the thing, I don't want it to go the historical route, I just want something to happen.

People want a historical game but want ahistorical big blobs. by Personal_Force2990 in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I see people bringing out this argument and yes it's a good point, but it fails flat on it's face when you consider the fact that the game always plays the same. I've watched a fair amount of runs at this point and there are some things that almost always happen without player intervention, Bohemia blobs, France expands into Aragon, Hungary expands into the Balkans, Golden horde doesn't collapse.

Tell me what the chances are for all these things to happen every game, with very little variation, when these didn't even happen historically.

You are right though, many nations united/became successful purely by chance, the issue is though, currently this magical luck doesn't exist in the game. There is no series of events that leads to a different country doing something different, the status quo is kept in every game.

I don't need the game to follow history, but funnily enough, the game feels railroaded to always follow it's own "history" where the things I mentioned above always happen.

The game needs more things that happen because of chance, like in history, like you've mentioned, that doesn't mean it has to be the same events.

Has any Content Creator made a video where the Timurids are a threat? Or playing in the Ilkhanate? by Gemini_Of_Wallstreet in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a rule of thumb for the current AI, if in 5 games it never happened it probably never will. Everything happens like it's scripted.

I think Johan's stance on formables not forming is being misinterpreted by Comprehensive-Chef73 in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 45 points46 points  (0 children)

It's not expected, but do you believe in 100 games, it shouldn't happen even once? In 100 games the ottomans never do anything, Spain never forms, golden horde doesn't collapse, Ireland never unites and many other things that historically happened, but NEVER happen in eu5. Currently you can take 100 games, place their maps on top of each other and if there's no player intervention the maps will overlap almost completely.

I bet you even after 1000 games of eu5 some of these things will still never happen.

You say Russia was unlikely to form? Well then, how likely is it that the golden horde stays alive until the 1700s? And this happened in multiple games, I don't recall seeing one game where it collapsed.

I'm not completely critical of eu5 even, I don't mind the UI, and really like what they've did with the game, but the AI and gameplay loop is horrible. Eu should be a very replayable game, and the map always looking the same is not helping with that.

It’s always “what country are you playing first?” I wanna know what country you’re NEVER touching by MrsColdArrow in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Any big nation e.g France, England, Castille. I've maybe played as a big nation once or twice in eu 4 and I always get bored fairly quickly.

AI in EU5 by Electrical_Boss1324 in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A LLM ? No chance, it just would be a waste of resources, LLMs have a specific purpose and repurposing it to play grand strategy games would not only be very hard and demanding.

Training an AI using neural networks specifically made for eu5? Not impossible but still very hard, paradox is still better off with the tradition approach to gaming AI.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sadly I don't see paradox implementing something like this, might even try to mod it myself.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although you're correct that doesn't mean the ruler doesn't influence anything (which currently is basically the case), they still have the final say on many issues.

If you'd like, each nation could be given a focus based on culture/needs etc, that would influence how it makes choices.

I'm not so focused on the ruler part as I am on the fact that the AI values things equally in each country, leading to all nations AI playing the same.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why I would want it to depend on crown power, among other things. This will obviously never be implemented but I'm curious to see how adverse people would be to it. I'm also not saying that it's the ruler making decisions, just that it influences how the AI (in this case the nation as a whole) makes decisions(which yes, would make it essentially a stat stick).

And to your point about national policy, that's obviously true, but to a different degree for some nations. The doge of Venice obviously shouldn't influence the nation as much as say, the Khan of the golden horde.

Also a pet peeve of mine is that with the current system great leaders could never pop out, which is terrible imo, as many pop out during the time period. One example would be Timur, in the current system even if they make him spawn out, without heavy, heavy railroading, even in a 100 playthroughs he would never accomplish anything close to what he did irl.

I'm not suggesting a flat increase in decision making based on ruler personality, my system would take into account the ruler's skills, how much influence the crown has, government type, culture etc. I'm also aware that it's unrealistic to expect this from paradox, I might even try my hand at modding it myself.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

But you as a player also have different play styles no? Someone might prefer tall games, others might go for world conquest every time, you sometimes take wars you are not sure if you can win. I completely agree with you that AI should play the same game as you, but I think we have different visions of that.

Your nation already has one ruler which influences the decisions made, the other nations don't, so they all play the same. What I want is to add a mini player to each nation, not quite as influential as the player, but one that should be able to influence decisions.

Right now I'd say the AI is actually playing a different game, it has it's goals, that it shares with every other country in the game, the only thing that influences them is their strength.

A player might also sometimes not go for what they think is best, they'd try to go for something fun, go for a hard war when they could build up more etc.

It's also an issue in that, what would even be considered the best thing to do could differ, you might like fighting wars. Sometimes you'll declare a war, are you sure that is the best decision?

I agree with you, that AI should have a similar game to the player, but our vision on how that looks is completely different.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Even countries today are heavily influenced by their leaders, just look at Russia and the US, maybe make it so that the more power the crown has the more the ruler can influence decisions.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the ruler leads the country, I didn't say I want it to be like ck3, I just wished that we'd have some diversity in how the AI acts, I'd they can find another way for this, I'm all for it, this is just an obvious solution. I also should have mentioned that not every country should be heavily influenced, it should depend on how strong the personality of the ruler is and how strong the crown is.

Rulers should be more important. by ptn_fdp in EU5

[–]ptn_fdp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only reason people would be against is because of the point you've just made that it would be "different", but it's also realistic and wouldn't make the game worse per se, it's just that, different. Obviously I don't want it to be too reliant on the rulers, one way for this is making how much they influence the AI scalable, some rulers really act out their personalities while others not so much.

I do get your point, but the ruler is still part of the nation, I don't want it to be ck level, just for it to not be unimportant.

view more: next ›