@Greecenumber1 of course you do. Do you listen to epic byzantine music? you must. IMO the best music for a strategos campaigning for the glory of the empire.
Its not about incest, is it my fault that my family members are just so much better, more beautiful, smarter and stronger(role playing as a prick with God syndrom)
@@TarkusarkusarYou forgot about the hyper gamer legitimate mod users. Basically hyper gamers which use mods to get cheat like results while still having achievements available. It is the most regulated way to play as you can only mod so much before the game automatically turns off achievements.
Exams right before end of the semester probably? Cant say of other european countries ("european thing" is pretty rare tbh) but in here each year of school is separated into two semesters, 1st ends pretty soon so probably final exams before the end of the semester and winter break.@@ricardoribeiroprudencio7871
I think an archetype that you didnt touch on, that in many ways can slightly fall into any bracket, is the Casual player. Not every person who plays CK3 will reach 2.6k hours and might primarily play Counter Strike 2 or Stardew Valley. So when they come back to the game after a big dlc or update I think the thing they're looking for is immediate recognizable changes they can say "Oh thats cool!". Maybe theyll play with once or twice and then come to a judgement on if it was fun or not based on that singular experience. Maybe after that leave a steam review and theyre back to FPS and farming. I think its important to remember just how many people may fall into this archetype because while your system is good for recognizing the more dedicated paradox community - the opinions of this casual crowd has quite a lot of sway. Their dlc sale is equal in value to one dlc sale to a 5k hour andy. Their review is equal to the most eloquent, well understood review of the most intune player. I put this because I sometimes consider how some mechanics, and maybe even entire dlc directions, are presented in such a way to give strong early presence. Landless was designed to be something quick to move through and build up, not to play into for extended periods - so it didnt need as much mechanical depth. This works really well for a player who wants to dip into landless and see what all the hype is about - play a quick mercenary band - build up a huge unstoppable army which on release was incredibly easy - and conquer a kingdom. Theres a kind of dopamine power fantasy that these casual players want to hit and if it isnt delivered soon enough or easily enough, they may become frustrated or tired of a game they ultimately arent really invested in enough to dedicate 12+ hours to a campaign to. This can come at the detriment to the more dedicated players, who will have to interact with these mechanics long term and can feel the fatigue much sooner. Im not saying any of this is deliberate by the devs, but I think its also true to think the devs arent making a game only for the most diehard of CK3 players and that has impact. LULE WHO WILL READ THIS ESSAY LULE
I guess he somewhat got tunnel vision on this topic cuz the people who interact with him about this game (or in any other medium for that matter) aren't that casual of a gamer
The equal and opposite of ‘The Influencer’ who wants to post the most ‘WACKY, ZAAAANY LOLRANDUM’ content to their social media of choice. They move many, many more units than any other player, and so are catered to. Every time a dev adds an event that’s so ‘wacky XD’, it is The Influencer they are appealing to. Make mechanics easy, and short, so that The Influencer can put it in their video. These are the ones who’s voices speak to PDX most directly. They care not for the game, but for the show.
Speak for yourself - I've been playing the same Landless campaign since Landless came out, and am currently on my 7th ruler. I'm trying to convert the whole world to my custom Taoism, but that takes time, especially since I have to on detours to deliver a tiny painting from Mongolia to North Africa as a 70 year old lady to get a hook on a king so I can force him to let my lady's daughter marry her soul mate which happens to be his heir. Cost me nearly two years that I could've been converting people! Though I did accidentally cause the creation of a really OP king that bulldozed over all his neighbors since my lady's daughter was OP, and her kids took after her, which wound up helping with the whole conversion situation. Plus I refuse to play as Zelous characters, so I can't use the missionary feature, and thus have to rely on my OP stats meticulously earned by listening to stories at taverns diligent educating all the children in camp, converting people to witchcraft and letting them experiment on my character at churches, and trying to selectively breed/recruit stronger followers (though I prioritize pairing people off with characters they actually like over pure efficiency, because otherwise I feel mean...which is why two if my current character's grandkids have hemophilia...)
As a roleplayer my biggest issues is seeing the same event text over and over again. I understood it is hard making more diverse events but being landless and seeing the exact events over and over during one life time? Drives me insane
I started out as a Hyper Gamer, then grinded out all of the Achievements and now I am a Roleplay Gamer for the most part. I might midmax from time to time, but mostly to create more interesting stories. (Like an adventuring chinese warlord who settles down in Byzantium and works his way up to become emperor.)
I'm kind of envious for people who can do that tbh. I find roleplay in ck2/3 so boring (more so in ck3 because personality is essentially static outside of rare events). Oh you rolled content? Well sit on your ass afk for 80+years.
@@The_Yukki I kinda get it. Dealing with a content/patient ruler can be tediouse. Thats why I often educate my kids to be callouse/excentric/sadistic/ambitiouse and so on. It results in much more chaos but also makes the game more interesting. Had games where a ruler had like 10 dead siblings, because they were constantly murdering each other for the throne. I usually make sure it makes some sense roleplay wise (like a callouse and ambitiouse ruler might want his children to fight for the throne so that the strongest survive). A mod that helps a lot with that is called House Traditions, because it makes some traits much more likely based on the house tradition your first ruler choses. (For example Distinction: Makes eccentric, brave and ambitiouse much more likely, while also reducing the chance of humble and content.)
A good follow up video to this would be a mod list for each archetype. As a mixture of roleplay GS and historical, it would be cool to know which mods try to appeal to both
I'd say there's also the challenge-runner. Someone who has a certain goal for a campaign and goes for that specific goal. It does not even need to be an achievment and it also doesn't need to be hard to accomplish but some just enjoy setting a goal and working a few decades or centuries towards it and once completed either add a new goal on top of it or start a new run. I personally made quite a few plans on certain runs for short- and long-term goals and choose my next campaign based on what sounds the most appealing to achieve atm.
I think the early CK3 was probably more balanced, mostly because stress was quite challenging to deal with in the first few years. But due to a mix of people learning all the stress strats and also a billion new options for how to deal with stress, it hasn't been an issue at all of late.
I think I'm a combination of the hyper core gamer and the alternate history gamer. I like starting historically, do some roleplaying, but ultimately I'll have some specific goal in mind. In my most recent game, I wanted to create a mirror of the byantine empire in Scandinavia by forming the empire of the north sea and making it the same gov type as the bizantines. I ended up reforming the faith, becoming the anti pope, created a genetically perfect dynasty, minmaxed my holdings and all holy sites and Europe basically conquered itself by now while I'm swimming in high numbers.
I do love the concept of kids refusing marriages, especially if it's the 4th or 5th kid who'll inherit no claims and gets an intrigue trait, they'll start to understand how their position in the feudal system won't advantage them and see how them being married off is only for their parent's benefit and will try to run off to make a better life for themselves (possibly focusing on becoming a spymaster/admin courtier) whereas a brave and foolish son would be stirred by wanderlust and a potential burning love that they want to follow their hearts (possibly converting to an adventuring camp, joining a crusading order) I still want Paradox to make a grand activity of coronations though, mods do a good job atm of kinda depicting their importance but it's crazy that we still don't have a coronation activity.
Maybe there's also the "weird" player, the antithesis to the historical gamer. They want to make weird things happen, not necessarily for any mechanical bonus, but because it shouldn't happen. You know, those people who spend hours trying to make the pope Muslim.
Im a history-roleplay sort of person, though i play ck2 mostly not 3. My most recent game saw me start as a landless (rise to power mod) greek in Murcia (larp as a descendent of a beurocrat left by the byzantines) i then became religioisly focused, preaching around south eastern iberia and bribing my way out of imprisionment before i can be executed. My son was much better educated and was able to lead a mercenary company for wealth while still preaching. His son with accumulated wealth and prestige organised the community of orthodox faithful in relbellion against the caliph as he was at war with the last free christians of iberia. I won the rebellion and declared myself king of valencia. In that game i went on to unite iberia, installing greek and orthodox aristocracy all over the peninsula eventually all iberia was greek and orthodox (aided by my first character being named a saint, giving my whole bloodline conversion bonuses) because of the weakness of other realms i was able to diplomatically rule the christians of western europe, turning them orthodox and inheriting france. I also lead many north african holy wars and repeated my aristocratic replacement. Im not finished with this game but ive far exceeded my original goal of uniting iberia in orthodoxy. Currently my dynasty rules over 10 kingdoms with 2 imperial titles
Really curious, is lingua franca easier by destroying all other kingdoms (and royal courts) or by some sort of diplomacy with a homogeneous culture / language?
@@eliott.b76 Considering tribal courts count toward the achievement I'd say no. It basically turned into a world conquest for me. I almost had to conquer all of Africa but by that point I had almost the entire world so they did change their court languages. I basically min maxed all children's marriages gave any child a duchy/kingdom that had a hook and changed their succession type to confederate partition in their contracts to ensure they couldn't maintain power. At the end of the day your in it for the long haul to get that one.
As a Role-Player, the one thing I dislike the most is inability to make new holy sites. If I am making a new religion, or roleplaying a religious minority fleeing to a new home to escape persecution, I want to be able to make new holy sites.
As a big time Role Player (focused on the individual), I'm all about the story of the individual. The Adventuring mechanic has become my favorite way to play the game as it allows me to tell the story of an adventurer who travels across the world, sets up an empire with their epic Journey Created stats, and then select an unlanded family member upon inheritance to strike out to continue this epic story in another location. The more options available to me, the more I enjoy myself as I always get emotionally attached to my characters and I have a hard time watching them fail. Also ... boredom is an issue.
7:10 - Lmao, good to know before I got any dumb ideas of picking that slog back up. The tipping point from “challenging” to “tedious” is a delicate one, and a bug? How delightfully Paradox game moment lol.
@hugohogberg for education I'd say brilliant strategist, maybe exalted warlord is a better fit. Personality ambitious is a must, diligent and I can't think of what a good 3rd trait would be.
Ye I'm the Alt-History gamer. Also aplies to EU4 and Vic 3. I want to paint the map and see the map be paited in interesting ways that make sense. I know its pretty much unachievable but I want every game of EU4 to end with same level of coexion and flavor as the Divergences of Darkness mod for Vic 3. I would have much more fun in this games if losing wars created interting results but all of them are essentially snowball similuators. This makes it so losing wars inderes my capacity to create interesting places.
I'm a roleplayer and I can describe pretty concretely the mechanics I dislike, not just for CK3 but CK as a franchise: domain management and army building. (though perhaps this puts me also in the history gamer category) CK is a game where you play as a series of individual power brokers engaging with the world by making your character do things, interacting socially with other characters and doing the job of power brokerage: manipulating social systems, appointing people to positions and giving them jobs, etc. However, the core economic systems around your domain and army are a total break from that, where you don't interact with a socially-defined world as a character but simply direct the flow of material resources as a player. Building up your domain is just holding buildings that produce resources over time that are then spent in fixed amounts to make more buildings, while your character is just sorta "there" providing a small passive buff via Stewardship. MAA are not hired from anywhere nor do they care about or interact with anything other than on the battlefield, being only an expression of gold invested in weapons rather than soldiers. This kind of materialistic approach is a standard way to represent a game economy, but is disconnected from how you engage with the rest of the game as a game, as a simulation, and as a story generation system. Whenever the subject of the game economy and "strategy and roleplaying" comes up there's generally two opposing arguments that get presented: "The economy being too basic limits liege-vassal relationships, alliance negotiations, content around government types and laws, etc. and so there needs to be more going on" and "The game is about people, the economy isn't about people, so adding more complexity to the game economy would cause unacceptable bloat". I agree with both arguments, but where some other roleplayers take for granted that "the economy isn't about people" and largely presume that it *must* be that way, I think that it can and should be otherwise. The game itself certainly asks us to *imagine* otherwise, a lot of the flavor text for buildings emphasizes people, privileges, and relationships: The Marches Duchy Building talks about the establishment of a series of many small marcher lords charged with fortifying the region, the Desert Agriculture building talks about increased integration between desert nomads and sedentary farmers, etc. The issue is that the people are abstracted away to the description, while the material "stuff" is front and center (if modeled in a very simple, crude way). I do think that the game has been incrementally improving in this respect. Every year we get content that emphasizes greater continuity between characters and the map: Culture, Travel&Activities, Plagues, etc. The Domicile Buildings for Adventurers and Administrative Nobles are also leagues ahead of the regular buildings in terms of being integrated into the core gameplay loop of your character and court doing stuff, though they still are (mostly) a lump sum gold investment into "stuff" rather than "people". Hopefully that momentum can keep going.
I never thought about this but i guess im a hyper gamer, i kinda like roleplaying a little bit but optimizing it as much as possible, like how fast i can be a conqueror starting from landless, creating my empire and get strength the bloodline to set my dinasty for success, now i think i wanna do a immortal run trying to have a 400 age char
The idea that rules and roleplay are at odds is sadly common among the ‘sandbox’ crowd (which is what I’d call ‘roleplayers’) because anybody who’s actually sat around a table and rolled dice for an evening can tell you that rules and restrictions ENHANCE roleplaying. Having to navigate the way the world works and getting a hard “no” is where the creativity lies, where the story is a little out of your hands to add some spice and flair. If somebody wants to eschew the rules that the Dungeon Master that is CK3 has imposed, they can write a novel where they have complete creative control. Part of what makes stories in TTRPGs, regular RPGs, and even ‘emergent narrative’ games so fun is that you _don’t_ have complete control. I see a lot of CK3’s ‘roleplay enhancements’ as being the exact opposite to that. It’s a GM that’s far too permissive. No, you can’t alter an entire culture from the top-down; no, you can’t invent a new faith (although with effort you can reform an old one). No, you can’t control getting what you want, you can wait and see if it happens because this world exists outside of you. And that’s the rub - to a roleplayer, one of the best parts of the experience is the ‘living world’ that they’re a part of. To a sandboxer, they’re god, and the world should conform to their whims. This is why I wouldn’t call them roleplayers. They’re sandbox players. A real roleplayer doesn’t bawk at restrictions and a lack of control, but embraces them. It’s not at odds with any other playstyle, but enhanced by it. A sandbox player is the one who always makes a custom character in the earliest start date and plays with a cheat menu - a roleplayer finds people poised for interesting stories, and explores all that the game has to offer with that lens. And the sandbox player is by far the most common. PDX’s own data shows it - ‘the earliest start date is far and away the most picked’. Which is why CK3 sold incredibly well, it sacrificed everything to make that people happy. And while they’ll never be satisfied until they figure out they can actually just write stories, they’re certainly a lot happier than they were with CK3’s older brothers.
I feel like i would consider myself a mix of a balanced and roleplay gamer. In terms of balance, im closer to reasonable, but I do like the feeding an equivalent opponent since usually, as a player, I am more OP than the AI. Anyway, I also do feel like I enjoy the roleplay sense of the game. I also am a history gamer, tbh since I love larping as historical kingdoms, and I usually dislike wild possibilities such as the recent run I did of a Nestorian Tamil Britannia, but that was for a megacampaign and I was going for a fun, story-based campaign with a personal goal (technically given by Tarkus but ya know). Also, I enjoyed most of the DLCs up to this point besides LoTD. Edit: I also tend to usually use the "Historic Invasions" mod to give a sense of more "historical" in the way that they Seljuks or the Mongols can invade, these historical conquerors shape the game and can be genuinely challenging but also pleasing to see those in game.
I use achievements as a way to choose a goal for my campaign. Without some kind of externally defined challenge I tend to form an empire title then get bored, as that's usually as far as I care to expand for expansion's sake. I really loved the ck2 spotlight characters because it provided exactly that. I don't play ironman because I have limited time in life and having to repeat a dozen hour campaign because of some stupid mistake makes me want to destroy my computer
I was a hypergamer, but after conquering the world it just ddint feel the same, and now I like making alternative history that is a bit waky but possible
It turns out that each player's archetype depends on what they want to achieve at the moment. For example, I can set my goals as an RPG player or as a grand strategy player, so here the archetypes are more about different ways of playing rather than the players themselves.
legends are good because they add in a reliable way to create special buildings, I love this mechanic but I think that it could be implemented a lot better
I'm a roleplay gamer but I want more difficulty to the game, I want it to be difficult to make the story i have in mind and have plenty of unexpected things happen. I want that i don't need to restrict my actions on purpose for the game to be challenging. Also I want different stories and challenges depending on where I start. Right now, it feels the same no matter where you play or what your character is.
I do something different. I debug in order to roleplay. That way you can roleplay without skill restrictions. You can get what you want done. If you're better at making up stories than you are at the game, that's the way to do it
Dude. The example given on differences between a Roleplayer Player and History Player called out my previous campaign so hard! 😂 I was doing a MILF-DILF challenge I had created for myself where dynasty members are only allowed to marry characters who already have at least one child. To make things a bit easier, I turned on full religious tolerance, same sex marriage, and gender equality, then created my character: Tatsu of the MILF-DILF Lover dynasty - the Ari Buddhist Norse king of Alba. (Note: I didn't actually name him, I asked some people on a D&D Discord server to name him, and _that's_ what they came up with.) He was actually a lot of fun, but for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend, people kept leaving their kids with him. Like, when I first started the game, there was this random 8 year old in his court, but both his parents were knights in Ireland. Then we recruited sn Irish lady as a knight, and she had 3 illegitimate kids while she was there, but when I married her off to her lover (some count in Ireland) once I found out who it was _she left her kids behind!_ And those were his kids too! Then Haesteinn's widow, who was one of Tatsu's wives as well as his vassal showed up when I held court asking him to look after this orphan staying in her court - a West African Buddhist girl. _In Scotland._ How she got there I don't know. The the king of Sweden showed up, with his four year old, and stayed with us a bit before going home - _and left his toddler behind in Scotland!_ We aren't related to him in any way, but the kid's my courtier now I guess...I also accidentally made an empire in that game, because I kept having to give counties to women so Tatsu could marry them without losing legitimacy, and they and their kids - as well as some of his other inlaws - kept conquering and inheriting land! I got a notification that Sweden was raiding us, and discovered we had somehow absorbed the entirity of Scotland at some point without me noticing...😅
The only good reason I've ever really used legends for mechanical purposes is to evangelize my pacifist faith to neighboring realms. Which unless they're warmongers threatening you, isn't worth the cost to get a legend to mythical level to achieve this.
I would say I'm achievement hunter not only for ck3 but every pdx games (mostly to give me desire and reason to play as someone). On achievement and ironman and mods talks, I believes allowing us to earn achievement with mods is not a big deal, and even help modders and players in general by encourage them to use mods that enhance game experience. I do agree though that not longer need ironman to earn achievement kinda kills some of the prestige and that feeling of accomplishment you get after earned the achievement.
I started playing CK3 after sinking a couple thousand hours into EU4 and by that point I have moved on from hypergaming and firmly became a roleplayer, in EU4 and CK3 alike. Roleplaying is a source of endless entertainment bc the game itself stops being the provider of it but a tool for making it. One of my favorite stories was conquering Georgia as Haesteinn and establishing this Kartvelo-Nordic Kingdom with the Haesteining dynasty at its helm. Land of wine, mountains, vikings and heavy cavalry (I love Monaspa Men-at-Arms)!
im a mix of all , i dont care about achivements ,i care about roleplay in the way that affects the story of a area and not the person and like to play alt scenarios but i dont do world conquest
29:58 I think the rehional claims legend can be worthwhile, and that's about it, lol. Better value at higher ranks due to increasing cost of claim fabrication
used mod to put one of my Zhengyi/han character on iceland since i didn't wanna deal with the mess i made on east side of map outside of using mod to keep my chara alive/ add spice, i use it to support whatever whim i have at that moment, or a ruler above if im like duchy or county level ruler i saw they let you get achievements with mods, so i accidently got a few now. but now i'm not sure what im doing gameplay wise - 400 hours in
On the marriage regusal mechanic, their opinion of you should also matter, you vould also add in a 2 year cool down or something of the sort whereby characters can renig or pull out of a marriage kind of like the grand weddings decision or even an annulment mechanic. You could tie in faith to integrate it into religion maybe increasing or decreasing thw chances of acceptance based on faith hostility which would be dynamic. Therefore making different relegion marriages more possible instead of the current system. There's quite a bit which could be added to marriages outside of the basic stuff.
As for roleplayer part of me - inability to elope and marry people based on faith culture is total bullshit. As there are plenty of examples when people did stupid shit for love and none of the above-mentioned stopped them
As a matter of fact, the Russian tsars the Romanovs almost exclusively married Protestant German women. I mean sure that's in 18th and 19th century Russia but well, it should be possible.
I am a roleplayer, and one of the things which i dislike most is how long ruler, well, rule. Your average ruler should not live into their seventies, and they should die more often, to create a greater sense of realism. That is one of the largest issues I have with ck3, though I still greatly enjoy it. [I have 4.5k hours.]
I'm a mix of nearly all of these. I only play Ironman. I always use custom characters. I have over a thousand hours in Ck3 but nearly all of the Character related Achievements are still greyed out. I tend to use the Norse culture the most. Simply because they have the Best starting Base Culture. Nearly free sea voyage for your troops and Piracy is literally the best ever. Gold, Prestige, easy sieges with guaranteed captures. I absolutely Hate Legends. They are nearly worthless. Oh 3000 gold down the Toilet. What do you get. Claims to all the territory that is already in your empire. Whoohooo. I can't think of any other types of players.
After coming from the HOI4 community and also I play command and conquer somewhat mainly, I'm somewhat of an bybridgamer, meaning i try to strategize at the sametime try to do things overpowerd if it makes sense,
Since it hasn't been mentioned I'm probably a vibes gammer. Though most of my issues whith the game revolve around mechanics like the army ai and faith interactions. I pretty much pick somewhere anywhere outside of India/Tibet region basically and see where I go. Soft targeting Kingdoms as some sort of target.
I don't want A.I to be strong by making it have cheats. Nor do I want to handicap myself. Make the A.I just smart-ish. Building your fiefs should be a balance between MAA bonuses or Income of Gold/Growth,otherwise choose one and go compensate with fully maxed out MAA numbers or strong MAA with lots of good income and/or mercenaries.
I'm going to make the 6th archetype. #JusticeforBerbers :v But seriously i'm greatly peeved when Berber simulation of Almoravid and Almohad was not included in Iberian DLC. Lack of Turks in Persia too to a lesser extent but at least they bring in Seljuk invasion
Every playthrough is an achievement hunt for me. That being said, I'm not "anything goes" about it. The fun of achievements is planning an interesting route in between each achievement you go for. Easy achievements like getting married, or RNG ones like getting a random hunt event, are boring and pointless. Meanwhile, the sheer overabundance of Norse-exclusive achievements make for a lot of samey playthroughs. That is all to say, variety and challenge are very important, as well as having interesting tools, and interesting flavor to pass the time between the achievements actually firing. I would say King of All the Isles is the quintessential "fun achievement;" you have lots of options, an interesting restriction, and the Byzantines to fight as an end boss. Even much maligned "world conquest" achievements like Lingua Franca or Saga in Stone can be fun, since they give you a valid reason to use all of those power gaming strats you have learned from getting too good at the game over thousands of hours. Meanwhile, crap like "Play Baldwin, spam crossbows, and hope you survive leprosy for long enough for Saladin to attack you, and also hope he doesn't die either" should stay in the garbage, even if it sounds like a cool idea on paper.
Roleplayer and achievement hunter. Achievements determine my start and goals for a campaign, but while I get there I enjoy getting invested into my characters, their families, and their lives. I want to see an update to flesh out love and romance beyond pop ups and waiting. I do my best to be a good matchmaker for my characters, but the simplicity of seduce schemes sends the AI's infidelity rate sky high. I wish there were more ways to build loyalty with your spouse aside from romancing because +100 opinion has not been enough. Kids being able to present me with who they want to marry and me being able to grant their wish giving a loyalty bonus would be cool too.
I definitely don't fit into any one category, and have traits from all of them. I enjoy the roleplaying experience of creating a narrative with my character, I immensely enjoy history and most games I set out to achieve at least one achievement. I love stacking as many buffs as possible like a hypergamer, but still desire for the devs to make the game more challenging and balanced, particularly in majorly revamping the currently extremely gamey and boring combat system. Overall I definitely cannot subscribe myself to one in particular.
I'm part of the "Disgruntled Ex-gamer" that left in april last year(funnily, just checked and my I quit rant actually got another agree, lol) and has switched to project caesar as his new hope instead.
very interesting idea, the "I quit and don't like the game anymore" archetype. It's honestly surprisingly real, although I'd say it's more a Vic 3 archetype.
as a history archetype, idgaf about the opinions of hyper or achievement gamers bc they can go play some other game and get their success high or whatever. ultimately it's the history and (to a lesser extent) roleplay that serves as the foundation of ck3 imo, there's plenty of other strategy games out there but very few that can service medieval history gamers specifically
not me i am not a unique person i just imitate however i would play whichever previous paradox game i was playing (i try not to play ck3 after hoi because the game performance is too ass for world conquests)
I started off as a hyper gamer, then found it boring after my first game was a world conquest. I then transitioned to a role player with debug. I don’t care about stacking modifiers, though I will 100% break the game mechanics if my characters story requires it. This is if I have a character like the Prophet Mohammed, who changes the world so dramatically that mechanics would hold it back.
I'm definitely a Roleplayer who cares about Balance. I like stories to be reasonable, like sure it is historic to have one guy dominate a large swathe of Europe in a single lifetime but being a wandering bloke who becomes the smartest most capable most diplomatic most stewardy most stealtht man in history because he was homeless is kinda boring to me after the first few goes. As for DLC, it's funny I liked RTP when it came out and now I basically rarely use any of its features except Choose New Destiny. Meanwhile Wandering Nobles I was very meh in and now use it all the time - inspections and monument trips are really good and to me are more 'reasonable' ways to augment your character and enhance your realm than the omega-broken landless adventurers or the tedious and CPU-killing Admin govt. I also like T&T and RC. And actually you're right I love Iberia but mostly because I think regional depth like this allows for more interesting stories. I made a mod for the descendant of Julian of Ceuta last year which was a blast. Definitely have some overlap on history-gamer too. I actually wish there was more spooky stuff in ck3 though, it was a large part of life. The history of western occult traditions is fascinating. I suppose in a nutshell I like to make Reasonable alternative history scenarios, that don't steamroll the map and follow a RP/narrative. Also, we are on basically the same number of hours 😂 I wanted to make content last year but my MacBook Air can't handle the recording + game (even playing with smaller map). Taking a break now, looking forward to whatever they bring next - balanced or not.
There is few "Balance" type players cause CK franchise doesn't lends itself to that archetype. It is too assymetrical to balance. Beside that any discussion on "Balance" is exercise in pointlessness. If there is anything that I learned upon 20 years of visiting strategy games forums/communities is that universally the only correct take is your personal one. Any more optimization is "tryharding" and any less is "skill issue" :P. Power creep is expected but the question is how much between patches. PDX made it part of it's business model lately. I'm ok with 15-30% increase in numbers with DLC release. I'm not ok (and don't think anyone should) with 300-400% increases between DLC as it is not feasible longterm. As amount of DLC increases the old stuff needs to be endlessly buffed up and at some point basic premise of game systems or your CPU breaks. There are also issues with balance within DLC themself (Sphere of Influence features have clear winners), making them painfully obvious what the "correct" choices are and by such huge margin that it isn't funny. And then we have PDX that wants to sell those DLC with powercreep only to nerf it after year-two, which is consumer feels bad moment. Just before it hits some price cut due to seasonal sales.
I dunno if this *really* counts or not, since the individual players can likely be slotted into any one of these categories, but: What about the modders? And I don't mean the people who make the mods themselves, I mean the people who almost exclusively play with either some assortment of mods, or just straight up only play total conversion mods. They are far less rare then you might think, with a good amount of people who follow mods like AGOT, Elder Kings 2 or LotR:RiE themselves stating that they either don't play vanilla CK3 anymore, or the gamers who only play CK3 *because* of the total conversion mods. Anecdotal evidence here, but I have a friend who loves The Elder Scrolls and bought CK3 solely to play as a character in the TOS universe, and isn't interested in anything else. I guess it could fall under 'roleplayers', but I feel them being non-CK fans who play the game solely for their universe's mod should be it's own separate thing, right? ... Oh, and there's also the Lovers Lab peeps. Ya know the ones. The ones who are thankful you can play this game with one hand. No shame, of course. I'm a degen too, lol.
well, I'd say you look at how they play those mods. People who exclusively play EK2 are probably roleplayers, although it'll depend how they play of course. Regardless, I think it is reasonable to say that people who exclusively follow the modding scene might be an archetype of their own, if that's the main way they interact with the game.
I am something of a roleplay gamer and as a player who plays mainly the ATE mod. I really dislike playing as a female ruler or in a "matriarchial society". I just find it boring that really, I have to force myself to not use the matrilineal marriage type when I am in a patriarchial or "equal" society. As for my main gripe with the matriarchial society, having all female knights just doesn't appeal to me. If I am going to be in a female led society I want my catamite warriors dammit!
I would consider myself a hyper gamer but i do have something of a balanced gamer in me. I want to be as overpowered as possible, but currently that is just too much power and too easy to do. I want the game to make it difficult, so getting overpowered actually means something. Currently the game is just unbalanced, the ai is stupid and can't at all manage it's domain (The ruler of Abbasid empire instantly gives away Baghdad and the rest of his domain, to instead hold some random, control 0, low development desert county). I always try to get as op as possible, but even when im not doing it, it would require effort to in a few decades, maybe years, not have more troops than the HRE emperor as any of his duchy vassals and then randomly get elected as the emperor after his death. It has come to a point that i have to intentionally make the electors dislike me if i don't want to be the Kaiser.
I would say that I'm mostly a 'roleplayer' gamer in this game, but with just a little bit of 'hyper gamer' if I can. I don't care about achievements and not really about historical accuracy. For people concerned about the game's difficulty, it's fine. If the game is too easy for you, what are you doing here? This is the easiest Paradox grand strategy game. If the game is too hard for you...I don't know what to tell you, no it's not 😂 skill issue lol
RP gamers hate any difficulty. They're basically the only part of the game population that love strategy being removed from the game. Such like the game over being hardest to get than anything else in the game. Balanced gamers are fine with overpowered things when they require at least some effort or can be easily avoided. Varangians are a good example, they were broken since always and they're fine. It's easy not use them or have loads of them and deal with the cost when you go feudal. What it's not fine to remove game over in what was supposed to be strategy game. Or add a government for you to blob where AI can't form independence or dissolution factions. Or keep adding overpowered things that makes the old OP like varangians a joke. Such as being as strong as the Khan while landless. So my personal critique to RtP it's not as simple as it's not balanced. It's to play a save more than 50 years without being bored I literally can't do anything or I become extremely, more than ever, OP. I can't even play the game as I used to because now instead of failing a run with a game over I'm 'rewarded' for being bad or unlucky and I become landless, the personification of OP and everything wrong in the PDX concept of catering to RP casuals. The salt on the wound is that even scourge of the gods it's kinda trash. I find very annoying the only difficulty they really present is an army of Usain Bolts that everyone of them carry a cannon on their backpack. When I think about difficulty in fighting a conqueror is their army it's really good, they've a lot of MaA, or a lot of bonuses, a really good commander... No, they siege in 3 days and run away from me scared and siege more while running away, like a scared little girl. Balanced gamers can also be hyper games when they need to do something to become powerful, even if it's extremely overpowered. They did something to get there. Start as Byzantines or landless it's fun for 1, 2, 3 times. Get 40k crossbowmen requires some thought, strategy and work to get that.
Skim read what you said but you cab still game over its uo to you whether you want tk or not. I terms of difficulty idc do we want EU4 or CK3 idk I feel like people want what EU5 is promising to be. I like bith game for what they are but idk the difficulty complaints always just feel like crying over the game not beeing EU4
@@PH-jv4ik Eu5 seems to be good.. but i would be cautious, it makes me remember the kind of failure of Victoria 3, too much in a package, more than they can chew
Which Archetype are you gamers?
I only play Greek orthodox characters in Byzantium
You forgot the Nationalist tbh
@Greecenumber1 of course you do. Do you listen to epic byzantine music? you must. IMO the best music for a strategos campaigning for the glory of the empire.
Roleplayer only, maybe change to do some achievements
Not fan of min-maxing or speedrunning too
Achievement Hunter when new update drops, but otherwise Roleplay
'Hypergamer' excuse me good sir I am just roleplaying as a winner
Same brother, same GIGACHAD
Its not about incest, is it my fault that my family members are just so much better, more beautiful, smarter and stronger(role playing as a prick with God syndrom)
@@TarkusarkusarYou forgot about the hyper gamer legitimate mod users.
Basically hyper gamers which use mods to get cheat like results while still having achievements available.
It is the most regulated way to play as you can only mod so much before the game automatically turns off achievements.
Can't believe I'm listening to a thesis on different types of CK3 players instead of studying for my maths exam
I'm listening to this instead of grading my students' math exam if it makes you feel better.
Who has tests in freaking January? Must be a European thing or something... anyway, good luck.
Math is important so you can calculate bonus stacks
how are we in the same boat, is it tomorrow?
Exams right before end of the semester probably? Cant say of other european countries ("european thing" is pretty rare tbh) but in here each year of school is separated into two semesters, 1st ends pretty soon so probably final exams before the end of the semester and winter break.@@ricardoribeiroprudencio7871
I am the kind of player who only cares about pretty internal borders and de jure hierarchy
Nothing wrong with a bit of 'tism. 😉
I feel you brother mess border is hurting my eyes 😂
nah you not, you just trying to be uniq with your answer...
@@donkarnage6986 minor spelling mistake
my greatest sin is using a cheat menu just to adjust my internal borders every now and then
I think an archetype that you didnt touch on, that in many ways can slightly fall into any bracket, is the Casual player. Not every person who plays CK3 will reach 2.6k hours and might primarily play Counter Strike 2 or Stardew Valley. So when they come back to the game after a big dlc or update I think the thing they're looking for is immediate recognizable changes they can say "Oh thats cool!". Maybe theyll play with once or twice and then come to a judgement on if it was fun or not based on that singular experience. Maybe after that leave a steam review and theyre back to FPS and farming. I think its important to remember just how many people may fall into this archetype because while your system is good for recognizing the more dedicated paradox community - the opinions of this casual crowd has quite a lot of sway. Their dlc sale is equal in value to one dlc sale to a 5k hour andy. Their review is equal to the most eloquent, well understood review of the most intune player.
I put this because I sometimes consider how some mechanics, and maybe even entire dlc directions, are presented in such a way to give strong early presence. Landless was designed to be something quick to move through and build up, not to play into for extended periods - so it didnt need as much mechanical depth. This works really well for a player who wants to dip into landless and see what all the hype is about - play a quick mercenary band - build up a huge unstoppable army which on release was incredibly easy - and conquer a kingdom. Theres a kind of dopamine power fantasy that these casual players want to hit and if it isnt delivered soon enough or easily enough, they may become frustrated or tired of a game they ultimately arent really invested in enough to dedicate 12+ hours to a campaign to. This can come at the detriment to the more dedicated players, who will have to interact with these mechanics long term and can feel the fatigue much sooner. Im not saying any of this is deliberate by the devs, but I think its also true to think the devs arent making a game only for the most diehard of CK3 players and that has impact.
LULE WHO WILL READ THIS ESSAY LULE
I will read the essay.
well written.
I guess he somewhat got tunnel vision on this topic cuz the people who interact with him about this game (or in any other medium for that matter) aren't that casual of a gamer
The equal and opposite of ‘The Influencer’ who wants to post the most ‘WACKY, ZAAAANY LOLRANDUM’ content to their social media of choice. They move many, many more units than any other player, and so are catered to. Every time a dev adds an event that’s so ‘wacky XD’, it is The Influencer they are appealing to. Make mechanics easy, and short, so that The Influencer can put it in their video. These are the ones who’s voices speak to PDX most directly. They care not for the game, but for the show.
Casuals don't play CK 3 😂😂 C'mon...
Speak for yourself - I've been playing the same Landless campaign since Landless came out, and am currently on my 7th ruler. I'm trying to convert the whole world to my custom Taoism, but that takes time, especially since I have to on detours to deliver a tiny painting from Mongolia to North Africa as a 70 year old lady to get a hook on a king so I can force him to let my lady's daughter marry her soul mate which happens to be his heir. Cost me nearly two years that I could've been converting people! Though I did accidentally cause the creation of a really OP king that bulldozed over all his neighbors since my lady's daughter was OP, and her kids took after her, which wound up helping with the whole conversion situation.
Plus I refuse to play as Zelous characters, so I can't use the missionary feature, and thus have to rely on my OP stats meticulously earned by listening to stories at taverns diligent educating all the children in camp, converting people to witchcraft and letting them experiment on my character at churches, and trying to selectively breed/recruit stronger followers (though I prioritize pairing people off with characters they actually like over pure efficiency, because otherwise I feel mean...which is why two if my current character's grandkids have hemophilia...)
You call me a hyper gamer, yet I am but a humble painter.
With a small eugenics hobby on the side.
By painter, do you mean painter of the map or painter like a certain famous Austrian?
Then again, I suppose they are one and the same. To a degree 😂
As a roleplayer my biggest issues is seeing the same event text over and over again. I understood it is hard making more diverse events but being landless and seeing the exact events over and over during one life time? Drives me insane
Same!
Every time I start a new game I yell myself, "OK, This time I'm going to play tall!" But then I end up creating an empire.
As a historical gamer i love trying to figure out what someone would historically do and try and make the game feel real
I started out as a Hyper Gamer, then grinded out all of the Achievements and now I am a Roleplay Gamer for the most part. I might midmax from time to time, but mostly to create more interesting stories. (Like an adventuring chinese warlord who settles down in Byzantium and works his way up to become emperor.)
I'm kind of envious for people who can do that tbh. I find roleplay in ck2/3 so boring (more so in ck3 because personality is essentially static outside of rare events). Oh you rolled content? Well sit on your ass afk for 80+years.
@@The_Yukki I kinda get it. Dealing with a content/patient ruler can be tediouse. Thats why I often educate my kids to be callouse/excentric/sadistic/ambitiouse and so on. It results in much more chaos but also makes the game more interesting. Had games where a ruler had like 10 dead siblings, because they were constantly murdering each other for the throne. I usually make sure it makes some sense roleplay wise (like a callouse and ambitiouse ruler might want his children to fight for the throne so that the strongest survive). A mod that helps a lot with that is called House Traditions, because it makes some traits much more likely based on the house tradition your first ruler choses. (For example Distinction: Makes eccentric, brave and ambitiouse much more likely, while also reducing the chance of humble and content.)
A good follow up video to this would be a mod list for each archetype. As a mixture of roleplay GS and historical, it would be cool to know which mods try to appeal to both
I'd say there's also the challenge-runner. Someone who has a certain goal for a campaign and goes for that specific goal. It does not even need to be an achievment and it also doesn't need to be hard to accomplish but some just enjoy setting a goal and working a few decades or centuries towards it and once completed either add a new goal on top of it or start a new run.
I personally made quite a few plans on certain runs for short- and long-term goals and choose my next campaign based on what sounds the most appealing to achieve atm.
I think the early CK3 was probably more balanced, mostly because stress was quite challenging to deal with in the first few years. But due to a mix of people learning all the stress strats and also a billion new options for how to deal with stress, it hasn't been an issue at all of late.
I think I'm a combination of the hyper core gamer and the alternate history gamer. I like starting historically, do some roleplaying, but ultimately I'll have some specific goal in mind. In my most recent game, I wanted to create a mirror of the byantine empire in Scandinavia by forming the empire of the north sea and making it the same gov type as the bizantines. I ended up reforming the faith, becoming the anti pope, created a genetically perfect dynasty, minmaxed my holdings and all holy sites and Europe basically conquered itself by now while I'm swimming in high numbers.
I do love the concept of kids refusing marriages, especially if it's the 4th or 5th kid who'll inherit no claims and gets an intrigue trait, they'll start to understand how their position in the feudal system won't advantage them and see how them being married off is only for their parent's benefit and will try to run off to make a better life for themselves (possibly focusing on becoming a spymaster/admin courtier) whereas a brave and foolish son would be stirred by wanderlust and a potential burning love that they want to follow their hearts (possibly converting to an adventuring camp, joining a crusading order)
I still want Paradox to make a grand activity of coronations though, mods do a good job atm of kinda depicting their importance but it's crazy that we still don't have a coronation activity.
I event in with you can become a adventurer in those circumstances would be fun
its a mechanic in AGOT mod, although its not super fleshed out there.
This system exists in the agot mod, kids can protest against marriages and if you force them, they run away or elope
Maybe there's also the "weird" player, the antithesis to the historical gamer. They want to make weird things happen, not necessarily for any mechanical bonus, but because it shouldn't happen. You know, those people who spend hours trying to make the pope Muslim.
Im a history-roleplay sort of person, though i play ck2 mostly not 3. My most recent game saw me start as a landless (rise to power mod) greek in Murcia (larp as a descendent of a beurocrat left by the byzantines) i then became religioisly focused, preaching around south eastern iberia and bribing my way out of imprisionment before i can be executed. My son was much better educated and was able to lead a mercenary company for wealth while still preaching. His son with accumulated wealth and prestige organised the community of orthodox faithful in relbellion against the caliph as he was at war with the last free christians of iberia. I won the rebellion and declared myself king of valencia.
In that game i went on to unite iberia, installing greek and orthodox aristocracy all over the peninsula eventually all iberia was greek and orthodox (aided by my first character being named a saint, giving my whole bloodline conversion bonuses) because of the weakness of other realms i was able to diplomatically rule the christians of western europe, turning them orthodox and inheriting france. I also lead many north african holy wars and repeated my aristocratic replacement.
Im not finished with this game but ive far exceeded my original goal of uniting iberia in orthodoxy. Currently my dynasty rules over 10 kingdoms with 2 imperial titles
As an achievement hunter I hated doing Lingua Franca. It broke my soul lol
Really curious, is lingua franca easier by destroying all other kingdoms (and royal courts) or by some sort of diplomacy with a homogeneous culture / language?
@@eliott.b76 Considering tribal courts count toward the achievement I'd say no. It basically turned into a world conquest for me. I almost had to conquer all of Africa but by that point I had almost the entire world so they did change their court languages. I basically min maxed all children's marriages gave any child a duchy/kingdom that had a hook and changed their succession type to confederate partition in their contracts to ensure they couldn't maintain power. At the end of the day your in it for the long haul to get that one.
27:50 him talking about how mechanics should be added
Me on the other hand: that holy war is FIRE🔥
As a Role-Player, the one thing I dislike the most is inability to make new holy sites. If I am making a new religion, or roleplaying a religious minority fleeing to a new home to escape persecution, I want to be able to make new holy sites.
As a big time Role Player (focused on the individual), I'm all about the story of the individual. The Adventuring mechanic has become my favorite way to play the game as it allows me to tell the story of an adventurer who travels across the world, sets up an empire with their epic Journey Created stats, and then select an unlanded family member upon inheritance to strike out to continue this epic story in another location. The more options available to me, the more I enjoy myself as I always get emotionally attached to my characters and I have a hard time watching them fail. Also ... boredom is an issue.
Historical, I wanna be able to live amongst historical characters not other random names. And I wanna have the ability to change historical things.
Roleplay/Historical multiclass. It's all about how the people interact with the world around them, and the systems in that world.
7:10 - Lmao, good to know before I got any dumb ideas of picking that slog back up. The tipping point from “challenging” to “tedious” is a delicate one, and a bug? How delightfully Paradox game moment lol.
alexander the great was 100% a hyper gamer
i wonder what traits he had
@hugohogberg for education I'd say brilliant strategist, maybe exalted warlord is a better fit. Personality ambitious is a must, diligent and I can't think of what a good 3rd trait would be.
@@Fun4luveStubborn.
Ye I'm the Alt-History gamer. Also aplies to EU4 and Vic 3.
I want to paint the map and see the map be paited in interesting ways that make sense.
I know its pretty much unachievable but I want every game of EU4 to end with same level of coexion and flavor as the Divergences of Darkness mod for Vic 3.
I would have much more fun in this games if losing wars created interting results but all of them are essentially snowball similuators. This makes it so losing wars inderes my capacity to create interesting places.
I'm a roleplayer and I can describe pretty concretely the mechanics I dislike, not just for CK3 but CK as a franchise: domain management and army building. (though perhaps this puts me also in the history gamer category)
CK is a game where you play as a series of individual power brokers engaging with the world by making your character do things, interacting socially with other characters and doing the job of power brokerage: manipulating social systems, appointing people to positions and giving them jobs, etc. However, the core economic systems around your domain and army are a total break from that, where you don't interact with a socially-defined world as a character but simply direct the flow of material resources as a player. Building up your domain is just holding buildings that produce resources over time that are then spent in fixed amounts to make more buildings, while your character is just sorta "there" providing a small passive buff via Stewardship. MAA are not hired from anywhere nor do they care about or interact with anything other than on the battlefield, being only an expression of gold invested in weapons rather than soldiers. This kind of materialistic approach is a standard way to represent a game economy, but is disconnected from how you engage with the rest of the game as a game, as a simulation, and as a story generation system.
Whenever the subject of the game economy and "strategy and roleplaying" comes up there's generally two opposing arguments that get presented: "The economy being too basic limits liege-vassal relationships, alliance negotiations, content around government types and laws, etc. and so there needs to be more going on" and "The game is about people, the economy isn't about people, so adding more complexity to the game economy would cause unacceptable bloat". I agree with both arguments, but where some other roleplayers take for granted that "the economy isn't about people" and largely presume that it *must* be that way, I think that it can and should be otherwise. The game itself certainly asks us to *imagine* otherwise, a lot of the flavor text for buildings emphasizes people, privileges, and relationships: The Marches Duchy Building talks about the establishment of a series of many small marcher lords charged with fortifying the region, the Desert Agriculture building talks about increased integration between desert nomads and sedentary farmers, etc. The issue is that the people are abstracted away to the description, while the material "stuff" is front and center (if modeled in a very simple, crude way).
I do think that the game has been incrementally improving in this respect. Every year we get content that emphasizes greater continuity between characters and the map: Culture, Travel&Activities, Plagues, etc. The Domicile Buildings for Adventurers and Administrative Nobles are also leagues ahead of the regular buildings in terms of being integrated into the core gameplay loop of your character and court doing stuff, though they still are (mostly) a lump sum gold investment into "stuff" rather than "people". Hopefully that momentum can keep going.
11:20 "Nyaland"
Definettly am a mix of Roleplayer and Historical
OwO
I never thought about this but i guess im a hyper gamer, i kinda like roleplaying a little bit but optimizing it as much as possible, like how fast i can be a conqueror starting from landless, creating my empire and get strength the bloodline to set my dinasty for success, now i think i wanna do a immortal run trying to have a 400 age char
The idea that rules and roleplay are at odds is sadly common among the ‘sandbox’ crowd (which is what I’d call ‘roleplayers’) because anybody who’s actually sat around a table and rolled dice for an evening can tell you that rules and restrictions ENHANCE roleplaying. Having to navigate the way the world works and getting a hard “no” is where the creativity lies, where the story is a little out of your hands to add some spice and flair.
If somebody wants to eschew the rules that the Dungeon Master that is CK3 has imposed, they can write a novel where they have complete creative control. Part of what makes stories in TTRPGs, regular RPGs, and even ‘emergent narrative’ games so fun is that you _don’t_ have complete control.
I see a lot of CK3’s ‘roleplay enhancements’ as being the exact opposite to that. It’s a GM that’s far too permissive. No, you can’t alter an entire culture from the top-down; no, you can’t invent a new faith (although with effort you can reform an old one). No, you can’t control getting what you want, you can wait and see if it happens because this world exists outside of you. And that’s the rub - to a roleplayer, one of the best parts of the experience is the ‘living world’ that they’re a part of. To a sandboxer, they’re god, and the world should conform to their whims.
This is why I wouldn’t call them roleplayers. They’re sandbox players. A real roleplayer doesn’t bawk at restrictions and a lack of control, but embraces them. It’s not at odds with any other playstyle, but enhanced by it. A sandbox player is the one who always makes a custom character in the earliest start date and plays with a cheat menu - a roleplayer finds people poised for interesting stories, and explores all that the game has to offer with that lens.
And the sandbox player is by far the most common. PDX’s own data shows it - ‘the earliest start date is far and away the most picked’. Which is why CK3 sold incredibly well, it sacrificed everything to make that people happy. And while they’ll never be satisfied until they figure out they can actually just write stories, they’re certainly a lot happier than they were with CK3’s older brothers.
This is really great observation. Gonna use 'Sandboxer' term from now on
I feel like i would consider myself a mix of a balanced and roleplay gamer. In terms of balance, im closer to reasonable, but I do like the feeding an equivalent opponent since usually, as a player, I am more OP than the AI. Anyway, I also do feel like I enjoy the roleplay sense of the game. I also am a history gamer, tbh since I love larping as historical kingdoms, and I usually dislike wild possibilities such as the recent run I did of a Nestorian Tamil Britannia, but that was for a megacampaign and I was going for a fun, story-based campaign with a personal goal (technically given by Tarkus but ya know). Also, I enjoyed most of the DLCs up to this point besides LoTD.
Edit: I also tend to usually use the "Historic Invasions" mod to give a sense of more "historical" in the way that they Seljuks or the Mongols can invade, these historical conquerors shape the game and can be genuinely challenging but also pleasing to see those in game.
I use achievements as a way to choose a goal for my campaign. Without some kind of externally defined challenge I tend to form an empire title then get bored, as that's usually as far as I care to expand for expansion's sake. I really loved the ck2 spotlight characters because it provided exactly that. I don't play ironman because I have limited time in life and having to repeat a dozen hour campaign because of some stupid mistake makes me want to destroy my computer
I was a hypergamer, but after conquering the world it just ddint feel the same, and now I like making alternative history that is a bit waky but possible
It turns out that each player's archetype depends on what they want to achieve at the moment. For example, I can set my goals as an RPG player or as a grand strategy player, so here the archetypes are more about different ways of playing rather than the players themselves.
legends are good because they add in a reliable way to create special buildings, I love this mechanic but I think that it could be implemented a lot better
I'm a roleplay gamer but I want more difficulty to the game, I want it to be difficult to make the story i have in mind and have plenty of unexpected things happen. I want that i don't need to restrict my actions on purpose for the game to be challenging. Also I want different stories and challenges depending on where I start. Right now, it feels the same no matter where you play or what your character is.
I do something different. I debug in order to roleplay. That way you can roleplay without skill restrictions. You can get what you want done. If you're better at making up stories than you are at the game, that's the way to do it
Dude. The example given on differences between a Roleplayer Player and History Player called out my previous campaign so hard! 😂
I was doing a MILF-DILF challenge I had created for myself where dynasty members are only allowed to marry characters who already have at least one child. To make things a bit easier, I turned on full religious tolerance, same sex marriage, and gender equality, then created my character: Tatsu of the MILF-DILF Lover dynasty - the Ari Buddhist Norse king of Alba. (Note: I didn't actually name him, I asked some people on a D&D Discord server to name him, and _that's_ what they came up with.) He was actually a lot of fun, but for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend, people kept leaving their kids with him. Like, when I first started the game, there was this random 8 year old in his court, but both his parents were knights in Ireland. Then we recruited sn Irish lady as a knight, and she had 3 illegitimate kids while she was there, but when I married her off to her lover (some count in Ireland) once I found out who it was _she left her kids behind!_ And those were his kids too! Then Haesteinn's widow, who was one of Tatsu's wives as well as his vassal showed up when I held court asking him to look after this orphan staying in her court - a West African Buddhist girl. _In Scotland._ How she got there I don't know. The the king of Sweden showed up, with his four year old, and stayed with us a bit before going home - _and left his toddler behind in Scotland!_ We aren't related to him in any way, but the kid's my courtier now I guess...I also accidentally made an empire in that game, because I kept having to give counties to women so Tatsu could marry them without losing legitimacy, and they and their kids - as well as some of his other inlaws - kept conquering and inheriting land! I got a notification that Sweden was raiding us, and discovered we had somehow absorbed the entirity of Scotland at some point without me noticing...😅
The only good reason I've ever really used legends for mechanical purposes is to evangelize my pacifist faith to neighboring realms. Which unless they're warmongers threatening you, isn't worth the cost to get a legend to mythical level to achieve this.
Hmm i think my RPG type is just about sitting around on holding but the vassal always trying to expanding themself to the neighbor lands.😅
I would say I'm achievement hunter not only for ck3 but every pdx games (mostly to give me desire and reason to play as someone).
On achievement and ironman and mods talks, I believes allowing us to earn achievement with mods is not a big deal, and even help modders and players in general by encourage them to use mods that enhance game experience. I do agree though that not longer need ironman to earn achievement kinda kills some of the prestige and that feeling of accomplishment you get after earned the achievement.
haha, big number gose burrrr
"why yes, 100 stat man was the most justified i felt playing crusader kings..."
I started playing CK3 after sinking a couple thousand hours into EU4 and by that point I have moved on from hypergaming and firmly became a roleplayer, in EU4 and CK3 alike.
Roleplaying is a source of endless entertainment bc the game itself stops being the provider of it but a tool for making it. One of my favorite stories was conquering Georgia as Haesteinn and establishing this Kartvelo-Nordic Kingdom with the Haesteining dynasty at its helm. Land of wine, mountains, vikings and heavy cavalry (I love Monaspa Men-at-Arms)!
im a mix of all , i dont care about achivements ,i care about roleplay in the way that affects the story of a area and not the person and like to play alt scenarios but i dont do world conquest
29:58 I think the rehional claims legend can be worthwhile, and that's about it, lol. Better value at higher ranks due to increasing cost of claim fabrication
used mod to put one of my Zhengyi/han character on iceland since i didn't wanna deal with the mess i made on east side of map
outside of using mod to keep my chara alive/ add spice, i use it to support whatever whim i have at that moment, or a ruler above if im like duchy or county level ruler
i saw they let you get achievements with mods, so i accidently got a few now. but now i'm not sure what im doing gameplay wise - 400 hours in
On the marriage regusal mechanic, their opinion of you should also matter, you vould also add in a 2 year cool down or something of the sort whereby characters can renig or pull out of a marriage kind of like the grand weddings decision or even an annulment mechanic.
You could tie in faith to integrate it into religion maybe increasing or decreasing thw chances of acceptance based on faith hostility which would be dynamic. Therefore making different relegion marriages more possible instead of the current system. There's quite a bit which could be added to marriages outside of the basic stuff.
As for roleplayer part of me - inability to elope and marry people based on faith culture is total bullshit. As there are plenty of examples when people did stupid shit for love and none of the above-mentioned stopped them
As a matter of fact, the Russian tsars the Romanovs almost exclusively married Protestant German women. I mean sure that's in 18th and 19th century Russia but well, it should be possible.
I am a roleplayer, and one of the things which i dislike most is how long ruler, well, rule. Your average ruler should not live into their seventies, and they should die more often, to create a greater sense of realism. That is one of the largest issues I have with ck3, though I still greatly enjoy it. [I have 4.5k hours.]
I'm a mix of nearly all of these. I only play Ironman. I always use custom characters. I have over a thousand hours in Ck3 but nearly all of the Character related Achievements are still greyed out. I tend to use the Norse culture the most. Simply because they have the Best starting Base Culture. Nearly free sea voyage for your troops and Piracy is literally the best ever. Gold, Prestige, easy sieges with guaranteed captures. I absolutely Hate Legends. They are nearly worthless. Oh 3000 gold down the Toilet. What do you get. Claims to all the territory that is already in your empire. Whoohooo.
I can't think of any other types of players.
After coming from the HOI4 community and also I play command and conquer somewhat mainly, I'm somewhat of an bybridgamer, meaning i try to strategize at the sametime try to do things overpowerd if it makes sense,
Expected you to have more of the achievements
Since it hasn't been mentioned I'm probably a vibes gammer. Though most of my issues whith the game revolve around mechanics like the army ai and faith interactions.
I pretty much pick somewhere anywhere outside of India/Tibet region basically and see where I go. Soft targeting Kingdoms as some sort of target.
I don't want A.I to be strong by making it have cheats.
Nor do I want to handicap myself.
Make the A.I just smart-ish.
Building your fiefs should be a balance between MAA bonuses or Income of Gold/Growth,otherwise choose one and go compensate with fully maxed out MAA numbers or strong MAA with lots of good income and/or mercenaries.
I'm going to make the 6th archetype. #JusticeforBerbers :v
But seriously i'm greatly peeved when Berber simulation of Almoravid and Almohad was not included in Iberian DLC. Lack of Turks in Persia too to a lesser extent but at least they bring in Seljuk invasion
Im freaky
Every playthrough is an achievement hunt for me. That being said, I'm not "anything goes" about it.
The fun of achievements is planning an interesting route in between each achievement you go for. Easy achievements like getting married, or RNG ones like getting a random hunt event, are boring and pointless. Meanwhile, the sheer overabundance of Norse-exclusive achievements make for a lot of samey playthroughs.
That is all to say, variety and challenge are very important, as well as having interesting tools, and interesting flavor to pass the time between the achievements actually firing.
I would say King of All the Isles is the quintessential "fun achievement;" you have lots of options, an interesting restriction, and the Byzantines to fight as an end boss. Even much maligned "world conquest" achievements like Lingua Franca or Saga in Stone can be fun, since they give you a valid reason to use all of those power gaming strats you have learned from getting too good at the game over thousands of hours. Meanwhile, crap like "Play Baldwin, spam crossbows, and hope you survive leprosy for long enough for Saladin to attack you, and also hope he doesn't die either" should stay in the garbage, even if it sounds like a cool idea on paper.
Roleplayer and achievement hunter. Achievements determine my start and goals for a campaign, but while I get there I enjoy getting invested into my characters, their families, and their lives. I want to see an update to flesh out love and romance beyond pop ups and waiting. I do my best to be a good matchmaker for my characters, but the simplicity of seduce schemes sends the AI's infidelity rate sky high. I wish there were more ways to build loyalty with your spouse aside from romancing because +100 opinion has not been enough. Kids being able to present me with who they want to marry and me being able to grant their wish giving a loyalty bonus would be cool too.
I definitely don't fit into any one category, and have traits from all of them. I enjoy the roleplaying experience of creating a narrative with my character, I immensely enjoy history and most games I set out to achieve at least one achievement. I love stacking as many buffs as possible like a hypergamer, but still desire for the devs to make the game more challenging and balanced, particularly in majorly revamping the currently extremely gamey and boring combat system. Overall I definitely cannot subscribe myself to one in particular.
I'm part of the "Disgruntled Ex-gamer" that left in april last year(funnily, just checked and my I quit rant actually got another agree, lol) and has switched to project caesar as his new hope instead.
very interesting idea, the "I quit and don't like the game anymore" archetype. It's honestly surprisingly real, although I'd say it's more a Vic 3 archetype.
as a history archetype, idgaf about the opinions of hyper or achievement gamers bc they can go play some other game and get their success high or whatever. ultimately it's the history and (to a lesser extent) roleplay that serves as the foundation of ck3 imo, there's plenty of other strategy games out there but very few that can service medieval history gamers specifically
i feel like a hyper gamer but if i cheat i lose interest in the campaign and sometimes start a new one
not me i am not a unique person i just imitate however i would play whichever previous paradox game i was playing (i try not to play ck3 after hoi because the game performance is too ass for world conquests)
Essay?
I started off as a hyper gamer, then found it boring after my first game was a world conquest. I then transitioned to a role player with debug. I don’t care about stacking modifiers, though I will 100% break the game mechanics if my characters story requires it. This is if I have a character like the Prophet Mohammed, who changes the world so dramatically that mechanics would hold it back.
I'm definitely a Roleplayer who cares about Balance. I like stories to be reasonable, like sure it is historic to have one guy dominate a large swathe of Europe in a single lifetime but being a wandering bloke who becomes the smartest most capable most diplomatic most stewardy most stealtht man in history because he was homeless is kinda boring to me after the first few goes.
As for DLC, it's funny I liked RTP when it came out and now I basically rarely use any of its features except Choose New Destiny. Meanwhile Wandering Nobles I was very meh in and now use it all the time - inspections and monument trips are really good and to me are more 'reasonable' ways to augment your character and enhance your realm than the omega-broken landless adventurers or the tedious and CPU-killing Admin govt. I also like T&T and RC. And actually you're right I love Iberia but mostly because I think regional depth like this allows for more interesting stories. I made a mod for the descendant of Julian of Ceuta last year which was a blast.
Definitely have some overlap on history-gamer too. I actually wish there was more spooky stuff in ck3 though, it was a large part of life. The history of western occult traditions is fascinating.
I suppose in a nutshell I like to make Reasonable alternative history scenarios, that don't steamroll the map and follow a RP/narrative.
Also, we are on basically the same number of hours 😂 I wanted to make content last year but my MacBook Air can't handle the recording + game (even playing with smaller map). Taking a break now, looking forward to whatever they bring next - balanced or not.
There is few "Balance" type players cause CK franchise doesn't lends itself to that archetype. It is too assymetrical to balance.
Beside that any discussion on "Balance" is exercise in pointlessness. If there is anything that I learned upon 20 years of visiting strategy games forums/communities is that universally the only correct take is your personal one. Any more optimization is "tryharding" and any less is "skill issue" :P.
Power creep is expected but the question is how much between patches. PDX made it part of it's business model lately. I'm ok with 15-30% increase in numbers with DLC release. I'm not ok (and don't think anyone should) with 300-400% increases between DLC as it is not feasible longterm. As amount of DLC increases the old stuff needs to be endlessly buffed up and at some point basic premise of game systems or your CPU breaks. There are also issues with balance within DLC themself (Sphere of Influence features have clear winners), making them painfully obvious what the "correct" choices are and by such huge margin that it isn't funny. And then we have PDX that wants to sell those DLC with powercreep only to nerf it after year-two, which is consumer feels bad moment. Just before it hits some price cut due to seasonal sales.
I dunno if this *really* counts or not, since the individual players can likely be slotted into any one of these categories, but:
What about the modders?
And I don't mean the people who make the mods themselves, I mean the people who almost exclusively play with either some assortment of mods, or just straight up only play total conversion mods. They are far less rare then you might think, with a good amount of people who follow mods like AGOT, Elder Kings 2 or LotR:RiE themselves stating that they either don't play vanilla CK3 anymore, or the gamers who only play CK3 *because* of the total conversion mods. Anecdotal evidence here, but I have a friend who loves The Elder Scrolls and bought CK3 solely to play as a character in the TOS universe, and isn't interested in anything else. I guess it could fall under 'roleplayers', but I feel them being non-CK fans who play the game solely for their universe's mod should be it's own separate thing, right?
...
Oh, and there's also the Lovers Lab peeps. Ya know the ones. The ones who are thankful you can play this game with one hand. No shame, of course. I'm a degen too, lol.
well, I'd say you look at how they play those mods. People who exclusively play EK2 are probably roleplayers, although it'll depend how they play of course. Regardless, I think it is reasonable to say that people who exclusively follow the modding scene might be an archetype of their own, if that's the main way they interact with the game.
I am something of a roleplay gamer and as a player who plays mainly the ATE mod. I really dislike playing as a female ruler or in a "matriarchial society". I just find it boring that really, I have to force myself to not use the matrilineal marriage type when I am in a patriarchial or "equal" society. As for my main gripe with the matriarchial society, having all female knights just doesn't appeal to me. If I am going to be in a female led society I want my catamite warriors dammit!
I would consider myself a hyper gamer but i do have something of a balanced gamer in me. I want to be as overpowered as possible, but currently that is just too much power and too easy to do. I want the game to make it difficult, so getting overpowered actually means something. Currently the game is just unbalanced, the ai is stupid and can't at all manage it's domain (The ruler of Abbasid empire instantly gives away Baghdad and the rest of his domain, to instead hold some random, control 0, low development desert county). I always try to get as op as possible, but even when im not doing it, it would require effort to in a few decades, maybe years, not have more troops than the HRE emperor as any of his duchy vassals and then randomly get elected as the emperor after his death. It has come to a point that i have to intentionally make the electors dislike me if i don't want to be the Kaiser.
I think Paradox needs to release a Holy Fury type DLC to give the crusades more flavor, they are way too bland for a game called crusader kings.
I would say that I'm mostly a 'roleplayer' gamer in this game, but with just a little bit of 'hyper gamer' if I can. I don't care about achievements and not really about historical accuracy. For people concerned about the game's difficulty, it's fine. If the game is too easy for you, what are you doing here? This is the easiest Paradox grand strategy game. If the game is too hard for you...I don't know what to tell you, no it's not 😂 skill issue lol
The Cheat User
RP gamers hate any difficulty. They're basically the only part of the game population that love strategy being removed from the game. Such like the game over being hardest to get than anything else in the game.
Balanced gamers are fine with overpowered things when they require at least some effort or can be easily avoided. Varangians are a good example, they were broken since always and they're fine. It's easy not use them or have loads of them and deal with the cost when you go feudal.
What it's not fine to remove game over in what was supposed to be strategy game. Or add a government for you to blob where AI can't form independence or dissolution factions. Or keep adding overpowered things that makes the old OP like varangians a joke. Such as being as strong as the Khan while landless.
So my personal critique to RtP it's not as simple as it's not balanced. It's to play a save more than 50 years without being bored I literally can't do anything or I become extremely, more than ever, OP.
I can't even play the game as I used to because now instead of failing a run with a game over I'm 'rewarded' for being bad or unlucky and I become landless, the personification of OP and everything wrong in the PDX concept of catering to RP casuals.
The salt on the wound is that even scourge of the gods it's kinda trash. I find very annoying the only difficulty they really present is an army of Usain Bolts that everyone of them carry a cannon on their backpack.
When I think about difficulty in fighting a conqueror is their army it's really good, they've a lot of MaA, or a lot of bonuses, a really good commander... No, they siege in 3 days and run away from me scared and siege more while running away, like a scared little girl.
Balanced gamers can also be hyper games when they need to do something to become powerful, even if it's extremely overpowered. They did something to get there. Start as Byzantines or landless it's fun for 1, 2, 3 times. Get 40k crossbowmen requires some thought, strategy and work to get that.
Skim read what you said but you cab still game over its uo to you whether you want tk or not. I terms of difficulty idc do we want EU4 or CK3 idk I feel like people want what EU5 is promising to be. I like bith game for what they are but idk the difficulty complaints always just feel like crying over the game not beeing EU4
Also yes combat is vexing to address that point, I'll wholeheartedly agree on that point.
@@PH-jv4ik Eu5 seems to be good.. but i would be cautious, it makes me remember the kind of failure of Victoria 3, too much in a package, more than they can chew
tarkus can you stop being burnt out on vic 3 already
50 seconds ago