Europa Universalis IV MP Community Thread of Don't trust the Russian or trains-Part 3

How many sessions until Kabouter gets annexed by some scrub AI country?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 18, 2007
13,991
0
0
Sweden
#1




GAME TIME IS:

WEDNESDAYS 21:30 - 23:00 CEST

SUNDAYS 21:00 - 23:00 CEST


GAME PASSWORD QUOTE TO SEE:





WHO PLAY WHO

Code:
Participating players:

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2DM7CqR.gif[/IMG] fanboi | Great Britain (formerly Scotland)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TupIEB0.gif[/IMG] Toma | Glorious Russia, finally. (formerly Novgorod)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GSCziDr.gif[/IMG] Mgoblue201 | Mughals (formerly Qara Qoyunlu)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/joSh9VZ.gif[/IMG] Roboleon | Commonwealth (formerly Poland)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RaBxVYg.gif[/IMG] Kabouter | Malaya (formerly Malacca)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GSCziDr.gif[/IMG] Haly | Inca (formerly Chimu, and before that Bavaria)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RaBxVYg.gif[/IMG] CloudWolf | Canada (fled Europe to his own colonies after having started as Sweden and formed Scandinavia)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RaBxVYg.gif[/IMG] smjanssen | Spain (formerly Aragon)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MvOdtE2.gif[/IMG] Jazzerman | Brandenburg
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MvOdtE2.gif[/IMG] Uzzy | Venice 
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/joSh9VZ.gif[/IMG] Gamma | Oman
RULES

Added rules after MP session 2:

1. If you consistently cause the game to drop below speed 2, you will be kicked for the duration of the session.

2. Maximizing the ticking war score means that the losing side must automatically meet the demands of the winning side. Achieving an overall war score of 80% also means the losing side must automatically meet the demands of the winning side. Peace demands can not exceed 100% war score.

3. Players may not have more than guarantee, ally, or be guaranteed by more than 1 other player nation prior to 1500, 2 other prior to 1600, or 3 others prior to 1750. A coalition may not have more than 3 player nations prior to 1500, 4 player nations prior to 1600, or 5 player nations prior to 1750. This rule does not count for any player controlled subjects a player might have. No enforce peace in wars involving human players on either side. Indirect involvement in wars (for instance threatening someone with an attack unless they don't engage in a war against human players) counts as an alliance for the player being helped and thus is only allowed if the player being helped does not exceed its human ally limit in this fashion.

4. Can't attack a player nation with more than 50% tech group disparity, unless through a non-subject third party. Rule expires in 1600.

5. One rejoin per session, if you crash out multiple times, wait for someone else to drop out and then you can of course also rejoin.

6. Player nations are open to attack once they miss three straight sessions. If the AI attacks another player in his absence, they can demand up to 50% war score, but no more.

7. A general anti-exploit rule. Basically, if it looks like an exploit, then don't do it.

8. Pausing only allowed when DoW happens to you. Then during the war it isn't acceptable. Players can pause once to make peace deals, but only for the allotted 25 seconds or so before others can unpause. PvP wars are not exempted.


GAME SETTINGS

Normal Difficulty
No Bonuses
Historical Lucky Nations
Dynamic Province Names On
Locked Ledger
Only Host Can Save
Editable Save
USED DLC:S

Conquest of Paradise
Wealth of Nations
Res Publica
Sword and Crescent
Purple Phoenix.
Art of War
(And a bunch of cosmetic stuff)
SERVER INFO (quote to see):


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Previous sessions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=668353
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=877208
Ending for session II:
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#4
So what are we thinking rulewise? My suggestion at minimum would be a rule mandating everyone needs to be able to maintain speed 2 and we need to include the rule we had started using about getting one rejoin per session and if you need more, then you have to wait for someone else to drop out too. I think that rule worked well.

Edit:
Still need ratings from Cloudwolf, Colkate, FACE, Mgo, Mleugi, Toma and Valhelm
 

Fitz

Member
Dec 7, 2009
2,120
0
570
United Kingdom
#5
Oh lawd, that thread title.

So what are we thinking rulewise? My suggestion at minimum would be a rule mandating everyone needs to be able to maintain speed 2 and we need to include the rule we had started using about getting one rejoin per session and if you need more, then you have to wait for someone else to drop out too. I think that rule worked well.
Agreed on both of those rules, otherwise the same as last game? Sans the infamous 50% rule. (Though we should keep the full 25% war goal part).

edit: Wouldn't mind seeing the voting system laid out in text just for clarification if possible, missed some of that discussion.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
#6
I think we can probably dump a lot of the rules, right? I don't think they worked very well or were paid attention to that much.
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#7
I think we can probably dump a lot of the rules, right? I don't think they worked very well or were paid attention to that much.
1. No Kills < Pointless beyond the first fifty years, later on anyone who could be annexed will have quit long before that actually happens.
2. Restricted Exploits < Eh, I don't think there is anything sufficiently egregious here that we specifically need to rule out, how about just a general anti-abuse rule? Don't be a dick and exploit massively, people can judge for themselves what goes too far and what doesn't surely.
3. Justified Demands < Terrible rule that favours/punishes arbitrary geographical differences and favours casus bellis like holy war which are strong enough as is.
4. Complete Negotiation < Fair, best to keep it imo.
6. Dictated Concession < Yeah, the 25% war goal thing is best here imo, anything else is unnecessary.
7. Limited Alliance < Good rule.
8. The Sakoku Edict < Good rule.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Jun 6, 2007
4,571
0
980
#8
I might as well start planning my Chimu strategy right now.
I think we can probably dump a lot of the rules, right? I don't think they worked very well or were paid attention to that much.
I think we can keep the rules, in some modified form, about peace negotiations between players and maybe the limited alliances. Other than that, I think we need a few rules about missed sessions and rejoining, as Kabouter suggested.
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#9
Oh, yeah, missed sessions. I was thinking you can't attack a player who has been absent for one or two sessions, but if someone has been absent for three consecutive sessions they're open for attack. If a player nation controlled by AI in his absence attacks a player, they can demand up to 50% war score from the nation, but no more.

How does that sound?
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
#12
Oh, yeah, missed sessions. I was thinking you can't attack a player who has been absent for one or two sessions, but if someone has been absent for three consecutive sessions they're open for attack. If a player nation controlled by AI in his absence attacks a player, they can demand up to 50% war score from the nation, but no more.

How does that sound?
This sounds fair.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Jun 6, 2007
4,571
0
980
#16
Here are the rules I would put in place:

1. Players must allow the war leader to negotiate for them in player vs. player wars.
2. Maximizing the ticking war score means that the losing side must automatically meet the demands of the winning side. I still favor forcing players to make concessions if the war score reaches a very high number, like 80 or 90%.
3. Limited alliances as it's currently written.
4. Can't attack a player nation with more than 50% tech group disparity, unless through a third party. Maybe this should have a sunset clause, like around 1650 or 1700?
5. One rejoin per session.
6. Player nations are open to attack once they miss three straight sessions. If the AI attacks another player in his absence, they can demand up to 50%, as kab said.
7. Maybe a general anti-exploit rule. Basically, if it looks like an exploit, then don't do it.

Do we need a rule about game speed? How would we even enforce that?
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
#18
Really looking forward to play France in this game!
iirc, these are the 10/10s



Can't wait to choose one of them!
I think you too need to wait in line. Morfeo, have fun with Venice next time.

If I am eligble I want to try as scotland
so I can say fanboi does what kingsnake doesn't
.
I wish you happy
and long
train travels during first 4-5 session to really do what I didn't.
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#19
Think we should probably go with player rating + country rating = 7 or below, otherwise you're going to get one or more of the following issues:
- All big countries are AI, because no one has a rating of 1/5 (lowest so far is 1.5 average)
- HRE going to be crowded as heeeeeellllll
- Tons of players outside Europe, too few in Europe

Also, what rating do we give new players? I propose 3, because on average a player will be better than the AI.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
#22
What causes the sessions to end? You haven't been hitting 1821 surely.
One player alliance bloc becomes obviously dominant.

EDIT: I'm fine with pausing to sort out peace deals, don't really see why that's a problem?
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
#24
Think we should probably go with player rating + country rating = 7 or below, otherwise you're going to get one or more of the following issues:
- All big countries are AI, because no one has a rating of 1/5 (lowest so far is 1.5 average)
- HRE going to be crowded as heeeeeellllll
- Tons of players outside Europe, too few in Europe

Also, what rating do we give new players? I propose 3, because on average a player will be better than the AI.
So that means that a player with 2 or under can pick a 5 stars country, right? Should be fine.

Edit: I support the idea that the pausing should happen only when someone declares war against you.
 
Oct 18, 2007
13,991
0
0
Sweden
#25
Summary so far:

1. Players must allow the war leader to negotiate for them in player vs. player wars.
2. Maximizing the ticking war score means that the losing side must automatically meet the demands of the winning side. I still favor forcing players to make concessions if the war score reaches a very high number, like 80 or 90%.
3. Limited alliances as it's currently written.
4. Can't attack a player nation with more than 50% tech group disparity, unless through a third party. Maybe this should have a sunset clause, like around 1650 or 1700?
5. One rejoin per session.
6. Player nations are open to attack once they miss three straight sessions. If the AI attacks another player in his absence, they can demand up to 50%, as kab said.
7. Maybe a general anti-exploit rule. Basically, if it looks like an exploit, then don't do it.
8. Pausing only allowed when DoW happens to you. Then during the war it isn't acceptable. Players can pause once to make peace deals, but only for the allotted 25 seconds or so before others can unpause. PvP wars are exempted.
 
Jan 17, 2013
13,023
0
0
#27
Think we should probably go with player rating + country rating = 7 or below, otherwise you're going to get one or more of the following issues:
- All big countries are AI, because no one has a rating of 1/5 (lowest so far is 1.5 average)
- HRE going to be crowded as heeeeeellllll
- Tons of players outside Europe, too few in Europe

Also, what rating do we give new players? I propose 3, because on average a player will be better than the AI.
So that means that a player with 2 or under can pick a 5 stars country, right? Should be fine.

Edit: I support the idea that the pausing should happen only when someone declares war against you.

I hope people have voted accordingly. It would be a shame if no-one were eligible for the big cajunas
 

Fitz

Member
Dec 7, 2009
2,120
0
570
United Kingdom
#29
It makes more sense imo to simply allow people to pick their nations in an order defined by a voted rank. Dividing everyone into tiers, then doing the same for nations, then allowing picks in the usual way is a bit convoluted I think. Plus with a straight-up player ranking, we can take our time picking nations in turn from any nation not already selected.
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#31
I hope people have voted accordingly. It would be a shame if no-one were eligible for the big cajunas
Yeah, right now it would just be a single player eligible to pick anything, unless we're rounding to the nearest whole number, then it's three.

It makes more sense imo to simply allow people to pick their nations in an order defined by a voted rank. Dividing everyone into tiers, then doing the same for nations, then allowing picks in the usual way is a bit convoluted I think. Plus with a straight-up player ranking, we can take our time picking nations in turn from any nation not already selected.
Would still end up with the dominant players in this game being able to pick great powers and being dominant all over again. There has to be some way of keeping the big kahunas out of the hands of people who are ridiculously good at the game.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Jun 6, 2007
4,571
0
980
#32
It makes more sense imo to simply allow people to pick their nations in an order defined by a voted rank. Dividing everyone into tiers, then doing the same for nations, then allowing picks in the usual way is a bit convoluted I think. Plus with a straight-up player ranking, we can take our time picking nations in turn from any nation not already selected.
I agree it's a little convoluted. On the other hand, allowing players to pick any nation in a defined order wouldn't really change anything.
One player alliance bloc becomes obviously dominant.

EDIT: I'm fine with pausing to sort out peace deals, don't really see why that's a problem?
At the very least, I think players should be encouraged to think about the peace deal during the war and try to do it on the fly. The long pauses can get a little excessive at times, and that goes for myself too.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Jun 6, 2007
4,571
0
980
#34
Maybe there should be a compromise. Players can pause once to make peace deals, but only for the allotted 25 seconds or so before others can unpause. PvP wars are exempted.
 

Fitz

Member
Dec 7, 2009
2,120
0
570
United Kingdom
#35
Would still end up with the dominant players in this game being able to pick great powers and being dominant all over again. There has to be some way of keeping the big kahunas out of the hands of people who are ridiculously good at the game.
I agree it's a little convoluted. On the other hand, allowing players to pick any nation in a defined order wouldn't really change anything.
With the amount of players we have, that makes sense, a cap on the medium-stronger nations is fair. Just don't want to get totally shafted and end up having to pick from Chimu and Ryukyu.
 
Feb 10, 2006
22,757
1
1,290
#37
With the amount of players we have, that makes sense, a cap on the medium-stronger nations is fair. Just don't want to get totally shafted and end up having to pick from Chimu and Ryukyu.
You won't, don't worry. You'll be looking at a minor probably, but a European minor is probably going to be the minimum anyone can pick. Anything beyond Muslim/Horde tech group is fine for everyone I reckon.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
#38
Think we should probably go with player rating + country rating = 7 or below, otherwise you're going to get one or more of the following issues:
- All big countries are AI, because no one has a rating of 1/5 (lowest so far is 1.5 average)
- HRE going to be crowded as heeeeeellllll
- Tons of players outside Europe, too few in Europe

Also, what rating do we give new players? I propose 3, because on average a player will be better than the AI.
I agree with new players being given a 3, and also with the 'cap at 7' rule.

I think with the nation scale that ultimately the point of this ranking system is to end up with a 'balanced' end-game, in that everyone feels like, even if they're not maybe dominant, that they're at least capable of influencing events - I think it was problematic that the Muscowy-Aragon-Mamluks-Ottoman axis decided the game before a lot of players even really got involved in international politics. The point of this ranking system is to determine fair handicap - so ideally, the way the system works should be designed with that in mind.

So, the way I see it is this: imagine the most 1-est player you would feasibly expect to see playing in our multiplayer sessions, and imagine them playing France, which is pretty definitionally 5 as the best nation in the game. A 1-star ranked nation would be one such that the most 5-est player you would feasibly expect to see playing in our multiplayer session could expect to be roughly as capable as the 1-est star player with France by say 1650 (as nobody actually plays to 1821). For example, if you thought that I was an absolutely rubbish player, and mgo was god's own gift to EU4, then a 1-star nation would be any nation where mgo would only be capable of overtaking me by 1650ish. That means a 1-star nation is probably not something like Chimu or Albania, they're unranked. A 1-star nation is probably something I'd guesstimate at being say, the Livonian Order, which could probably form a reasonable size Prussia capable of standing up to a poor France solo by around 1650ish.

The rest of the scale works the same way. A 2-star nation would be a country where the player you think is most definitionally a 4-star player would be equal with our 1-est player as France by 1650, a 3-star would be a country where the player you think is most definitionally a 3-star player would be equal with our 1-est player as France by 1650, and so on. This way the very metric of what makes a country 1, 2, or 3 out of 5 is relative to what a player can do with them. I think it also makes the ranking more meaningful: given 2/5 player ranking means "does as well as AI" and 1/5 player ranking means "performs worse than AI", a 4/5 nation ranking means "the AI for this nation could be expected to compete evenly with a bad France player by 1650", as an example. (1 player rank + 5 nation rank = 2 player rank + 4 nation rank). A 1-star nation can still be reasonably viable: catching up to France by 1650 with Genoa even with France headed a bad player is still going to be bloody difficult and I'd consider it an excellent performance by whoever managed it.

I mean, by this ranking I'd probably give Brandenburg 3 out of 5 - if I imagined a 3/5 player with France (better than AI but not hugely so) and a 5/5 player as Brandenburg (GOAT player), it'd still take til 1650ish before that Brandenburg player could feel 100% comfortable going mano el mano, one on one with that France.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
#43
Also my flag is wrong. Either Australian or Welsh is acceptable, but English? :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.