Excerpt from the Official Mr. Scruff's Treatise on the Effect of Player Mentality on the Dynamics of Campaign Enjoyability
"....We could abolish whatever rule you want to complain about, but it won't cause you to stop being frustrated; the reasons you are frustrated are entirely separate from the scoring system. The leading reason people are getting frustrated is because they are losing wars, and they are losing wars because they have less rich and less powerful allies than the people invading them (or that they are invading). Before these rules existed, you had the same complaints, the same cop-outs, the same bullshit. We agreed on some levels and took you seriously and implemented rules to address the complaint, and now you are blaming the rule that makes it easier than ever to come back from defeat. This is asinine. If you were able to count your ledger given eu4 points you'd still be losing! Because, it is all relative. It doesn't matter if you have 8k points and that makes you feel better than having 0 points - you still have less than your competitor, and that is what matters. Not to mention, if the rules were reverted, the person brutalizing you now, would be brutalizing you in different method that still reduces your points in contrast to their own. The only REAL difference is now you can't legitimately complain that there is no hope.
The real beauty of the victory card only/target city rules are this: Not only is it very easy to influence the scoreboard so that you can win/lose from a single war, but the fact that this is true should at a meta-level make everyone realize that winning and losing isn't a big deal. Yes, please do try to win because your competition is what makes the game interesting; but, ultimately I'm not here just in the hopes of winning, I'm here for the journey not the destination. I (usually) have a ton of fun during our 3-hour session and it's nice to be able to keep in touch with old (and new) friends who are geographically distant. The scoreboard is just there to steer the gameplay, but when the dust settles the scoreboard is really only going to say "these people had some good wars in the last 20 years, and these people did not fair as well". Just because the scoreboard no longer reflects your 40 years of dominance doesn't mean we all collectively forgot how well you were doing, the entire timeline matters, not just 1821. Winning and Losing is largely symbolic, largely chance, and very arbitrary. What is a lot less hollow than that is that a group of 13+ people consistently met on Sundays for 3 hours and socialized over a complex game, which is the real goal of all of this.
More on defeatism:
At the slightest setback (always emphasized with a loss of territory) suddenly our dreams of grandeur are no longer attainable, and we are quick to realize how our enemies have unfairly conspired against us forming an insurmountable coalition. This makes us more bitter and we start to wonder why we endure this humiliation just so that the very people who have harmed us get to relish their victory. We start to realize subconsciously what was stated before...that winning isn't any fun if you're playing a multiplayer game alone. And so, in our bitterness, we decide to hold the game hostage - if we can't have our fun, we'll rob everyone else of theirs.
As you can see I completely understand why you feel this way and I'd be lying if I claimed to never flirt with the idea myself from time to time when I fail at achieving my goals. But, you have to realize that you don't always lose - sometimes you win, sometimes you win big - and guess what? You won at the expense of others. Even if you did it purely through diplomacy or colonization and never invaded anyone...your win is still their loss. Do you want the nations you best to abandon their nations and cry foul when you orchestrate their downfall? I hope not. When I crush a foe I hope to see them spend massive efforts trying to turn the tables on me, but if that is going to happen they can't rage-quit the game.
While defeatism surfaces in the people who are suffering losses in the game, it is not entirely devoid of external factors. Some people are better at the mechanics of eu4 and others are better at the diplomacy aspect. The most terrifying and daunting adversary is someone who is good at both. When 5 great powers are all helping your rival for some indiscernible reason, I can guarantee you the reason is that your enemy talked to them more than you and convinced them it was in their nation's best interest to behave in this manner - that's part of the game. The easiest way to get anything difficult done in eu4 is to get someone else to do it for you. This will often result in players being manipulated. Sometimes via threat, sometimes by being promised a reward, sometimes the player is just itching for a war and they are very suggestible. You cannot ignore the diplomatic aspect of the game and then just blame the rules. Yes, ideally people won't go along with plans that don't further their own interest (and ideally they are judging their NATION's interest, not anything meta)...but that is something that just comes with time and experience and we cannot over-rule what a player elects to do no matter how absurd it is.
But really, it all boils down to sportsmanship.
-Don't forget to be diplomatic. Half of this game is the map and the units on it, the other half is in steam-chat forging and breaking alliances. Talk to people and make them sympathetic to your cause before your rivals convince them that your nation isn't worth conspiring with.
-If someone is on death's door and you realize that the spirit of the rule that says "capital areas are protected" intends to keep nations that suffer losses in the game with a fighting chance then you SHOULD NOT be conspiring to get the AI to eliminate them. Also, under the same spirit, helping nations get back on their feet is great diplomacy usually, especially if they aren't in your bracket. I mean, ideally this should be fine in the competitive bracket I guess, but even then people in the non-competitive bracket probably should intervene so they don't get a new enemy.
-Behave in your nation's best interest! Everyone and their mother is trying to manipulate you into doing their work for them. Make the game interesting! The more interesting you make the game the more fun is had and the healthier this group will be - take risks (reasonable ones...don't join my wars)! If your nation is more interesting when controlled by AI than when you are present...that's a litmus test.
-Don't meta-analyze. If you "you don't care about winning" or "you just care about nation selection for next campaign" and this is your reason for not acting in your nation's best interest...well what you are doing is actively spoiling the game. Other players NEED you to care about score so that they can collude with you in sensible ways that are mutually beneficial to you both. This behavior gives me the impression that you are taking the game way too seriously, like you think any failing in eu4 will cause severe judgment from others. i promise you this is not the case, we just want to have friendly competition. But if you "don't care" then you've not only decided to ruin your own nation, but you've alienated everyone who needed you as a potential ally. I often notice that people seem to care a lot more...when things are going well for them, when they are winning! If you can't weather a storm graciously then you are missing out on the best parts of this game. It's never impossible to come back, and when you do, it feels way better than being a juggernaut from day 1.
-Be gracious winners and gracious losers. If you lose a war you might need to shift your plans. it sucks, I've been there, but you can still win unless it's 1820. If you won a war, realize that you might lose the next, and realize how feeble your hold on victory is. One bad war is all it takes. You can choose to drive your victim's economy into the ground and steal all their land - or you could go easy on them in hopes that you won't be met with a 10-nation coalition in 10 years. Either way is viable. The only exception is that utterly crushing enemies tends to make them succumb to that pesky defeatism...but someone factoring that into their treaty is not a very gracious winner.
-One aspect of meta-game that is unavoidable is that your reputation as a player will follow you from one campaign to the next, I don't endorse holding grudges but we all know that I'm going to slander your merchants and support your rebels, we all know that Braxton is going to share a border with us eventually, we all know that Quinton will honor his alliances, and we all know that Blake is going to draw a war out until the bitter end having already set scorched earth on all his provinces. What do you want to be known for? Proving your disposition now might result in a setback but it could pay off in the future."
"....We could abolish whatever rule you want to complain about, but it won't cause you to stop being frustrated; the reasons you are frustrated are entirely separate from the scoring system. The leading reason people are getting frustrated is because they are losing wars, and they are losing wars because they have less rich and less powerful allies than the people invading them (or that they are invading). Before these rules existed, you had the same complaints, the same cop-outs, the same bullshit. We agreed on some levels and took you seriously and implemented rules to address the complaint, and now you are blaming the rule that makes it easier than ever to come back from defeat. This is asinine. If you were able to count your ledger given eu4 points you'd still be losing! Because, it is all relative. It doesn't matter if you have 8k points and that makes you feel better than having 0 points - you still have less than your competitor, and that is what matters. Not to mention, if the rules were reverted, the person brutalizing you now, would be brutalizing you in different method that still reduces your points in contrast to their own. The only REAL difference is now you can't legitimately complain that there is no hope.
The real beauty of the victory card only/target city rules are this: Not only is it very easy to influence the scoreboard so that you can win/lose from a single war, but the fact that this is true should at a meta-level make everyone realize that winning and losing isn't a big deal. Yes, please do try to win because your competition is what makes the game interesting; but, ultimately I'm not here just in the hopes of winning, I'm here for the journey not the destination. I (usually) have a ton of fun during our 3-hour session and it's nice to be able to keep in touch with old (and new) friends who are geographically distant. The scoreboard is just there to steer the gameplay, but when the dust settles the scoreboard is really only going to say "these people had some good wars in the last 20 years, and these people did not fair as well". Just because the scoreboard no longer reflects your 40 years of dominance doesn't mean we all collectively forgot how well you were doing, the entire timeline matters, not just 1821. Winning and Losing is largely symbolic, largely chance, and very arbitrary. What is a lot less hollow than that is that a group of 13+ people consistently met on Sundays for 3 hours and socialized over a complex game, which is the real goal of all of this.
More on defeatism:
At the slightest setback (always emphasized with a loss of territory) suddenly our dreams of grandeur are no longer attainable, and we are quick to realize how our enemies have unfairly conspired against us forming an insurmountable coalition. This makes us more bitter and we start to wonder why we endure this humiliation just so that the very people who have harmed us get to relish their victory. We start to realize subconsciously what was stated before...that winning isn't any fun if you're playing a multiplayer game alone. And so, in our bitterness, we decide to hold the game hostage - if we can't have our fun, we'll rob everyone else of theirs.
As you can see I completely understand why you feel this way and I'd be lying if I claimed to never flirt with the idea myself from time to time when I fail at achieving my goals. But, you have to realize that you don't always lose - sometimes you win, sometimes you win big - and guess what? You won at the expense of others. Even if you did it purely through diplomacy or colonization and never invaded anyone...your win is still their loss. Do you want the nations you best to abandon their nations and cry foul when you orchestrate their downfall? I hope not. When I crush a foe I hope to see them spend massive efforts trying to turn the tables on me, but if that is going to happen they can't rage-quit the game.
While defeatism surfaces in the people who are suffering losses in the game, it is not entirely devoid of external factors. Some people are better at the mechanics of eu4 and others are better at the diplomacy aspect. The most terrifying and daunting adversary is someone who is good at both. When 5 great powers are all helping your rival for some indiscernible reason, I can guarantee you the reason is that your enemy talked to them more than you and convinced them it was in their nation's best interest to behave in this manner - that's part of the game. The easiest way to get anything difficult done in eu4 is to get someone else to do it for you. This will often result in players being manipulated. Sometimes via threat, sometimes by being promised a reward, sometimes the player is just itching for a war and they are very suggestible. You cannot ignore the diplomatic aspect of the game and then just blame the rules. Yes, ideally people won't go along with plans that don't further their own interest (and ideally they are judging their NATION's interest, not anything meta)...but that is something that just comes with time and experience and we cannot over-rule what a player elects to do no matter how absurd it is.
But really, it all boils down to sportsmanship.
-Don't forget to be diplomatic. Half of this game is the map and the units on it, the other half is in steam-chat forging and breaking alliances. Talk to people and make them sympathetic to your cause before your rivals convince them that your nation isn't worth conspiring with.
-If someone is on death's door and you realize that the spirit of the rule that says "capital areas are protected" intends to keep nations that suffer losses in the game with a fighting chance then you SHOULD NOT be conspiring to get the AI to eliminate them. Also, under the same spirit, helping nations get back on their feet is great diplomacy usually, especially if they aren't in your bracket. I mean, ideally this should be fine in the competitive bracket I guess, but even then people in the non-competitive bracket probably should intervene so they don't get a new enemy.
-Behave in your nation's best interest! Everyone and their mother is trying to manipulate you into doing their work for them. Make the game interesting! The more interesting you make the game the more fun is had and the healthier this group will be - take risks (reasonable ones...don't join my wars)! If your nation is more interesting when controlled by AI than when you are present...that's a litmus test.
-Don't meta-analyze. If you "you don't care about winning" or "you just care about nation selection for next campaign" and this is your reason for not acting in your nation's best interest...well what you are doing is actively spoiling the game. Other players NEED you to care about score so that they can collude with you in sensible ways that are mutually beneficial to you both. This behavior gives me the impression that you are taking the game way too seriously, like you think any failing in eu4 will cause severe judgment from others. i promise you this is not the case, we just want to have friendly competition. But if you "don't care" then you've not only decided to ruin your own nation, but you've alienated everyone who needed you as a potential ally. I often notice that people seem to care a lot more...when things are going well for them, when they are winning! If you can't weather a storm graciously then you are missing out on the best parts of this game. It's never impossible to come back, and when you do, it feels way better than being a juggernaut from day 1.
-Be gracious winners and gracious losers. If you lose a war you might need to shift your plans. it sucks, I've been there, but you can still win unless it's 1820. If you won a war, realize that you might lose the next, and realize how feeble your hold on victory is. One bad war is all it takes. You can choose to drive your victim's economy into the ground and steal all their land - or you could go easy on them in hopes that you won't be met with a 10-nation coalition in 10 years. Either way is viable. The only exception is that utterly crushing enemies tends to make them succumb to that pesky defeatism...but someone factoring that into their treaty is not a very gracious winner.
-One aspect of meta-game that is unavoidable is that your reputation as a player will follow you from one campaign to the next, I don't endorse holding grudges but we all know that I'm going to slander your merchants and support your rebels, we all know that Braxton is going to share a border with us eventually, we all know that Quinton will honor his alliances, and we all know that Blake is going to draw a war out until the bitter end having already set scorched earth on all his provinces. What do you want to be known for? Proving your disposition now might result in a setback but it could pay off in the future."