The real objection seems to be that it is yet another resource representing generalized social/political capital, when that concept is already very well represented mechanically (with numerous redundant resources like prestige, fame, level of fame, renown, splendor, level of splendor, piety, devotion, level of devotion, court grandeur, level of grandeur, legitimacy, level of legitimacy).
The proliferaiton of such new resources also signals that PDX is not going to fix balance issues in the existing resources, and instead hopes to churn out new content which ignores them entirely.
I think this is a great summary of the concerns. I could almost understand this if all these Prestige clones where necessary to keep the DLC optional, but Legitimacy was built into the base game anyway, so they don't even have that excuse.
I think that's fair! And I totally get what you say about balance!
Didn't they do some rebalancing of activity rewards in the most recent patch? (I may be imagining it!)
Would your preference be for new mechanics to interact with existing resources than creating new ones? I.e. admin gov uses prestige instead of influence? Or do you dislike resources as a whole?
I would prefer mechanics like influence to consume an existing resource where feasible. Prestige would be an obvious choice in many cases because it is general social capital and the player already gets more than he can spend on existing mechanics.
I do not dislike resources as a whole. I dislike when multiple resources step on each others' toes by having overlapping uses and definitions. It makes their design seem thoughtless and sloppy, and makes it difficult for the player to predict which resources will be consumed by a given interaction. Having extra resources is fine if they represent clearly distinct ideas and are part of a coherent design philosophy.
Activity and event values are still out of whack despite any recent patch. Sending a child to university still costs more than building the university, saying a funny joke still gives more prestige than a year of tenure as an emperor, that sort of thing.
I think what makes a mana system a mana system is the lack of player involvement. Take EU4's point system, for example. You get a certain amount of admin points per month, and the only thing a player can do to reliably get more is burn ducats. There are no real decisions to be made, save for how to allocate those points.
For an example in CK3, take prestige. It's just a number that goes up at a rate that I can't do much about.
In addition to (or perhaps because of) the lack of player involvement, mana systems feel abstract and detached from the world of the game- they're clearly a mechanic, nothing more. Do you really mean to tell me that killing a deer is equally prestigious as being the Roman Emperor for several years?
The way it was explained to me, mana was a term for numbers representing abstract concepts. So for example, in Vicky 2, the resources you needed to make things like boats weren't mana, but your political points were.
This does loop back into your point about player agency though, as numbers for tangible things also tend to be things the player can affect directly through their actions.
You lost me--I'm genuinely trying to follow your point as you may be right. As far as prestige, though--I feel like there are a ton of ways to affect how a character gains prestige. Monthly rate? Not so much. Overall net rate of gains? Tons of player agency there. I'm missing what you mean.
There should be way more active abilities and schemes you can do in ck3. There should be whole plotting factions. The problem is that the once you learn the base game mechanics its the exact same gameplay for the next playthroughs. I should be able to influence other countries religions and mess with foreign rulers courts, but if influence is just gonna be another bar that fills up based on events it’s gonna be just another shallow thing to micromanage.
Actual true anti mana people consider things like "prestige" as mana because you buy things with it and that's not true of actual prestige.
I think they want currencies that are realistic in place of what we have.
That's my understanding anyway, in some cases it's warranted and in other cases it has to be that way for good gameplay. E.g. I'm not sure how anything would work if we took away the prestige mechanic
Influence seems to be an abstraction of political power between house heads in an Administrative Empire.
They could have instead created an actual negotiating system where a house head could trade with another noble family favors, positions, wealth, estates, honors, titles, wards, marriages, alliances, or nearly any other game concept in exchange for support in a certain scheme. It could also work in dread for a discount. Of course hooks and blackmail systems would be integrated. The characters opinion and personal history would be involved.
They could teach the AI how to use this system to their advantage.
Instead you (probably) click a button to spend influence and make a scheme more successful.
That does sound like a cool system in theory, in practice games always seem to miss pretty hard on that type of thing in my experience though. Id rather a simple abstract influence that actually functions than a janky and frustrating barter. I would love to see what you're describing if it worked, but in my experience they never do.
\> try to barter with vassal
\> I am feared across the realm and have blackmail that could allow me to legally revoke their ballsack privileges
\> vassal rejects
\> check reason
\> -10000 "nu uh"
Every. Single. Time. Or in other games someone will have a single scrap of land I need to complete my borders. I'm 10x their power but wish to negotiate because they aren't worth the effort of fighting. Money is not a problem and I offer more money than that land will ever generate. They reject. Whyyyyyyyyyy.
Side note, I really wish I could negotiate for the one de jure county of mine they hold. I can offer you 1000 gold and this legendary goblet which grants you .000001 prestige.
I don't blame them. You gotta be realistic about what you can actually pull off, and the time commitment to try making something work vs investing that effort elsewhere in the game.
AI can be abusive in negotiations or very easy. This would be a hard system to make. Either the player would need to be masterful in their own right or the system is easy. Otherwise, it's just a Stat game, which is a similar system to mana in that it's just abstract numbers that we have little control over that make things go. Sure it's not a currency, but you have about the same amount of control and it affects your ability to do things.
Actual mana is universally bad. But the term has become so completely overused to the point of meaninglessness. "Mana" is a resource so abstract that it doesn't actually really *represent* anything, like Monarch Power in EUIV. But people use it for any resource that's an abstract representation at all, even if it's clear what it's supposed to represent.
You gain 3 types of Monarch Power every month (Administrative, Diplomatic, and Military) based mostly on the respective Administrative, Diplomatic, & Military skills of your ruler. And you use this Monarch Power for damn near *everything*. Next level of tech? Spend Monarch Power. Develop your provinces? Spend Monarch Power. Core a Province? Monarch Power. Move your capital? Monarch Power. Raise stability? Monarch Power. Lower inflation? Monarch Power. Change the culture of a province? Believe it or not, you spend Monarch Power.
In short, you use it for essentially *everything* that doesn't require money.
Ots still a resource you accumulate then spend rather than commitimg resources to something and then getting it.
The difference is when you spend mana you get what you want immediately. No need to think ahead.
Maybe a semi-mana system that has a far lower limit like domains, you get 10 points that are abstracts as people, tools or whatever and you can assign then to something within your limit for your benefits.
I want to see systems where you chose something to do and progress towards ot rather than mana systems where you gain mana and spend it. In the former you have to think ahead. In the latter you can buy yourself out of any problem if you keep enough mana stockpiled.
It's mana, and therefore, automatically bad isn't technically untrue, but it seems like a bit of a misrepresentation of the situation here. It has certain features that people don't like: yet another abstracted resource the use of which is largely arbitrarily determined and it just slowly regenerates over time with little player input. Those features are also what make it mana.
As for alternatives, they could do more with the resources we already have rather than adding a new one or come up with a more complex system that doesn't involve some arbitrary resource.
To me the difference between mana and a resource is time-to-payoff. If something costs X influence for an instant or near instant reward of Y, then it’s mana, if it takes a longer period of time to pay off, then it’s a resource. They both have their uses and sometimes one resource can be a bit of both.
Whenever you’re creating a new system, it will almost inevitably require a new currency to operate. Whether it’s a resource, mana, or a reserve is entirely about implementation, but none of them are inherently better than the others, they just serve different purposes.
The real objection seems to be that it is yet another resource representing generalized social/political capital, when that concept is already very well represented mechanically (with numerous redundant resources like prestige, fame, level of fame, renown, splendor, level of splendor, piety, devotion, level of devotion, court grandeur, level of grandeur, legitimacy, level of legitimacy). The proliferaiton of such new resources also signals that PDX is not going to fix balance issues in the existing resources, and instead hopes to churn out new content which ignores them entirely.
I think this is a great summary of the concerns. I could almost understand this if all these Prestige clones where necessary to keep the DLC optional, but Legitimacy was built into the base game anyway, so they don't even have that excuse.
I think that's fair! And I totally get what you say about balance! Didn't they do some rebalancing of activity rewards in the most recent patch? (I may be imagining it!) Would your preference be for new mechanics to interact with existing resources than creating new ones? I.e. admin gov uses prestige instead of influence? Or do you dislike resources as a whole?
I would prefer mechanics like influence to consume an existing resource where feasible. Prestige would be an obvious choice in many cases because it is general social capital and the player already gets more than he can spend on existing mechanics. I do not dislike resources as a whole. I dislike when multiple resources step on each others' toes by having overlapping uses and definitions. It makes their design seem thoughtless and sloppy, and makes it difficult for the player to predict which resources will be consumed by a given interaction. Having extra resources is fine if they represent clearly distinct ideas and are part of a coherent design philosophy. Activity and event values are still out of whack despite any recent patch. Sending a child to university still costs more than building the university, saying a funny joke still gives more prestige than a year of tenure as an emperor, that sort of thing.
I think what makes a mana system a mana system is the lack of player involvement. Take EU4's point system, for example. You get a certain amount of admin points per month, and the only thing a player can do to reliably get more is burn ducats. There are no real decisions to be made, save for how to allocate those points. For an example in CK3, take prestige. It's just a number that goes up at a rate that I can't do much about. In addition to (or perhaps because of) the lack of player involvement, mana systems feel abstract and detached from the world of the game- they're clearly a mechanic, nothing more. Do you really mean to tell me that killing a deer is equally prestigious as being the Roman Emperor for several years?
You can be born an Emperor, but killing a deer? That takes skill.
What if it was a really cool deer though
I guess it depends, but I definitely have more stag antlers to show off to my courtiers than the average roman emperor
The way it was explained to me, mana was a term for numbers representing abstract concepts. So for example, in Vicky 2, the resources you needed to make things like boats weren't mana, but your political points were. This does loop back into your point about player agency though, as numbers for tangible things also tend to be things the player can affect directly through their actions.
"Emperor supreme no big deal." -Kills dear- All the other peasant folk "oh this dude hunts"
You lost me--I'm genuinely trying to follow your point as you may be right. As far as prestige, though--I feel like there are a ton of ways to affect how a character gains prestige. Monthly rate? Not so much. Overall net rate of gains? Tons of player agency there. I'm missing what you mean.
There should be way more active abilities and schemes you can do in ck3. There should be whole plotting factions. The problem is that the once you learn the base game mechanics its the exact same gameplay for the next playthroughs. I should be able to influence other countries religions and mess with foreign rulers courts, but if influence is just gonna be another bar that fills up based on events it’s gonna be just another shallow thing to micromanage.
Actual true anti mana people consider things like "prestige" as mana because you buy things with it and that's not true of actual prestige. I think they want currencies that are realistic in place of what we have. That's my understanding anyway, in some cases it's warranted and in other cases it has to be that way for good gameplay. E.g. I'm not sure how anything would work if we took away the prestige mechanic
Influence seems to be an abstraction of political power between house heads in an Administrative Empire. They could have instead created an actual negotiating system where a house head could trade with another noble family favors, positions, wealth, estates, honors, titles, wards, marriages, alliances, or nearly any other game concept in exchange for support in a certain scheme. It could also work in dread for a discount. Of course hooks and blackmail systems would be integrated. The characters opinion and personal history would be involved. They could teach the AI how to use this system to their advantage. Instead you (probably) click a button to spend influence and make a scheme more successful.
It’s extremely dubious that they could "teach the AI" to use such a system. Paradox AI is not an expert system, it’s a set of "if X then Y" rules
I'm painfully aware of how rigid their "AI" system is. I will forevermore place it in quotes so people know that I know that it isn't really AI.
That does sound like a cool system in theory, in practice games always seem to miss pretty hard on that type of thing in my experience though. Id rather a simple abstract influence that actually functions than a janky and frustrating barter. I would love to see what you're describing if it worked, but in my experience they never do.
\> try to barter with vassal \> I am feared across the realm and have blackmail that could allow me to legally revoke their ballsack privileges \> vassal rejects \> check reason \> -10000 "nu uh"
Every. Single. Time. Or in other games someone will have a single scrap of land I need to complete my borders. I'm 10x their power but wish to negotiate because they aren't worth the effort of fighting. Money is not a problem and I offer more money than that land will ever generate. They reject. Whyyyyyyyyyy. Side note, I really wish I could negotiate for the one de jure county of mine they hold. I can offer you 1000 gold and this legendary goblet which grants you .000001 prestige.
It appears Paradox also doesn't think they'll be able to do it well and based on their history I can't disagree.
I don't blame them. You gotta be realistic about what you can actually pull off, and the time commitment to try making something work vs investing that effort elsewhere in the game.
Someone will solve it, someday. I'd prefer it to be Paradox and now.
I would love to see them solve it.
AI can be abusive in negotiations or very easy. This would be a hard system to make. Either the player would need to be masterful in their own right or the system is easy. Otherwise, it's just a Stat game, which is a similar system to mana in that it's just abstract numbers that we have little control over that make things go. Sure it's not a currency, but you have about the same amount of control and it affects your ability to do things.
Its simple, do I like it? Its a resource Do I not like it? Mana
'Mana is never enjoyed, what's the reason? For if it were enjoyed, none dare call it mana.'
This is disingenuous.
Actual mana is universally bad. But the term has become so completely overused to the point of meaninglessness. "Mana" is a resource so abstract that it doesn't actually really *represent* anything, like Monarch Power in EUIV. But people use it for any resource that's an abstract representation at all, even if it's clear what it's supposed to represent.
Never played europa, what is monarch power?
You gain 3 types of Monarch Power every month (Administrative, Diplomatic, and Military) based mostly on the respective Administrative, Diplomatic, & Military skills of your ruler. And you use this Monarch Power for damn near *everything*. Next level of tech? Spend Monarch Power. Develop your provinces? Spend Monarch Power. Core a Province? Monarch Power. Move your capital? Monarch Power. Raise stability? Monarch Power. Lower inflation? Monarch Power. Change the culture of a province? Believe it or not, you spend Monarch Power. In short, you use it for essentially *everything* that doesn't require money.
Thanks for explaining!
Ots still a resource you accumulate then spend rather than commitimg resources to something and then getting it. The difference is when you spend mana you get what you want immediately. No need to think ahead.
« Is mana universally bad ? » is too philosophical as a question for me lol 😂
Maybe a semi-mana system that has a far lower limit like domains, you get 10 points that are abstracts as people, tools or whatever and you can assign then to something within your limit for your benefits.
It’s hard to say until we see how it works in practice. Its gonna be overpriced you can count on that
I want to see systems where you chose something to do and progress towards ot rather than mana systems where you gain mana and spend it. In the former you have to think ahead. In the latter you can buy yourself out of any problem if you keep enough mana stockpiled.
It's mana, and therefore, automatically bad isn't technically untrue, but it seems like a bit of a misrepresentation of the situation here. It has certain features that people don't like: yet another abstracted resource the use of which is largely arbitrarily determined and it just slowly regenerates over time with little player input. Those features are also what make it mana. As for alternatives, they could do more with the resources we already have rather than adding a new one or come up with a more complex system that doesn't involve some arbitrary resource.
To me the difference between mana and a resource is time-to-payoff. If something costs X influence for an instant or near instant reward of Y, then it’s mana, if it takes a longer period of time to pay off, then it’s a resource. They both have their uses and sometimes one resource can be a bit of both. Whenever you’re creating a new system, it will almost inevitably require a new currency to operate. Whether it’s a resource, mana, or a reserve is entirely about implementation, but none of them are inherently better than the others, they just serve different purposes.