安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
This is actually an excellent point, come to think of it. I didn't think about it because I always create my character, so I'm always starting from zero with regards to dynastic renown, but a lot of historical rulers are already starting big.
Even if CK3 weren't considered a 4X game, it's still a grand strategy game, and there still should be some way to actually win the game, whatever kind of game it is. Without a way to win the game, CK3 is basically pointless because it means all of the strategising, managing and planning are for nothing. The absence of a scoreboard means there is no real basis for competition in the game. It would be disappointing to see such a grand concept like CK3 go to waste without a scoreboard system.
It's a sandbox game with finite value and a score assigned. Other sandbox games can last as long as you stay alive.
True. So can CK3, of course, if you turn the end date off. But within the boundaries of the start and end date, it's still 100% sandbox.
That's how I personally feel, but I also don't play multiplayer/competitively against other people.
Winning vs Losing causes toxicity in people, so I rather, if there is a score, it be based off performance competencies. "you did well compared to X% of players"/"You're in the nth percentile regarding this stat."
I also don't really see how you can 'win' in this game, as the only designed objective is 'survive until 1453.'
Also when the game ends you can just click around and look at the renown of the 2 or 3 other families still competitive with yours. Sometimes the Palas in India can keep up with me because they're on the far side of the map where my meddling doesn't impact them. I guess putting it in a window at the end would save a minute or two. They could even put a little gold star on your profile and give you an achievement, if that sort of thing is important to you.
Now that he seems to have left, I may as well add my voice to the choir: CK3 is a game about your dynasty. It's the story of that dynasty, from its inception to 1453. The question isn't "Will you win?" but rather "Will you thrive?"
What thriving means is open to interpretation, but honestly I think people too often shortchange themselves with the conquest play style. Because they zero in so much on what "I" have, as the player that they overlook what "we" have, as the dynasty. It's rewarding to see your dynasty flourish.
Let me put it another way. I prefer the Tywin Lannister playstyle. Twyin wasn't sitting on the Iron Throne. He didn't care if he sat on the Iron Throne. What mattered was that House Lannister's glory was projected by way of his daughter marrying the king, by way of his grandson, though a Baratheon, sitting on the Iron Throne. What mattered was that his son was a capable member of the Kingsguard. What mattered was the dynasty.
By design, that's CK3. It's a game about a dynasty. I feel like too many people get caught up in the color of the map, or numbers on the screen, to the point that they don't care about their dynasty. I mean the meta playstyle is literally to create a character with Callous and off all your kids but one so you keep all your lands.
You are literally keeping all your lands when you let confederate partition take course.
Because YOU, as the first character you play, are trying to position your dynasty powerfully. You do that if you have a lot of sons who are, individually, rulers. ALL of them carry your legacy forward, not just the one you take control of.
I know the first time I finished the game, my thoughts were…is that it?