The sad state of affairs

[ywhtptgtfo]

Hey, I actually do have a PhD, man!

Since your PhD is well-earned, you probably don't want to use that to associate yourself with Derek Smart, who allegedly got it from a mill (rumoured, not confirmed).

[T.j. Arnold]

Screw the multiplayer. Just make sure the singleplayer part is perfect on its own and we will gladly pay and try the game.

You can always add in multiplayer later, but no one is gonna care if the singleplayer can't stand on its own.

Satisfy our thirsty, then fill our hunger.

I wonder what percent of users of EUIII even play multiplayer? I personally never have (none of my friends are into such complicated or historical games). It's probably even more of a minority among users who aren't active on the forum here.

[s1234567890m]

I wonder what percent of users of EUIII even play multiplayer? I personally never have (none of my friends are into such complicated or historical games). It's probably even more of a minority among users who aren't active on the forum here.

That was discussed within the team, but Paradox insisted on having the multiplayer in the first release. I don't know statistics, but according to them, many people play EU3 in multi. Or I don't know why, but they think it's imperative to have.

enough for paradox to care

[minispace]

I've been following this thread for the past few days and it makes for fascinating reading. I've been following Magna Mundi for considerably longer than that, and I sincerely hope UV and Paradox find an acceptable way to release the game.

s1234567890m, you have the 2nd post on this thread. Since forum mods have made it clear that no other threads will be started regarding this issue, your post is valuable real estate! Have you considered using that spot to collect the official statements from Magna Mundi devs? It could be of immense help to UV if readers could see that information in a single space, instead of spread across +1000 posts in this thread.

[Homero]

When a decision has been made and we are ready, whatever that decision may be, we will communicate it here. This might take weeks

Weeks.Is there a limit to how many pages a thread can have?

[stt0002]

minispace!!! You're a genius!!!!

Weeks.Is there a limit to how many pages a thread can have?

Apparently not (see the strange screenshots thread in eu3 forum )

[Zorapter]

In my world "The game is playable for 30-50 years without CTD" means quite exactly that it is not playable without CTD for more than that period.

That is not what the statement means or implies, that's just how you (and admittedly, quite a few others) personally interpret it. For example, some equivalently constructed statements:

"The San Andreas Fault can go 30-50 years without rupturing" "Vesuvius can go 30-50 years without blowing up" "I can go 30-50 years without dying" "A nuclear reactor can go 30-50 years without melting down" "My house won't fall down in the next 30-50 years"

None of those statements imply that immediately (or even soon) after the stated time period is up SanFran drops into the sea/ Naples gets obliterated etc etc.

[apsycobear]

Screw the multiplayer. Just make sure the singleplayer part is perfect on its own and we will gladly pay and try the game.

You can always add in multiplayer later, but no one is gonna care if the singleplayer can't stand on its own.

Satisfy our thirsty, then fill our hunger.

I don't think Paradox is going to have that.

[Beamed]

That is not what the statement means or implies, that's just how you (and admittedly, quite a few others) personally interpret it. For example, some equivalently constructed statements:

"The San Andreas Fault can go 30-50 years without rupturing" "Vesuvius can go 30-50 years without blowing up" "I can go 30-50 years without dying" "A nuclear reactor can go 30-50 years without melting down" "My house won't fall down in the next 30-50 years"

None of those statements imply that immediately (or even soon) after the stated time period is up SanFran drops into the sea/ Naples gets obliterated etc etc.

But that's exactly what those statements imply.

[PreciousTritium]

But that's exactly what those statements imply.

You're both right. The statement "x can go y time without failing" TECHNICALLY doesn't necessarily mean that "x" will fail as soon as its time is up. Context can add implication, though, and that is the case here.

Why don't the developers say that it can go for any longer than 50 years without crashing? Obviously that means that they can't guarantee a stable game after the first fifty years. Of course it doesn't mean that the game will crash on year 51, but the danger of one occurring becomes real.

It's worrisome that the game can only be guaranteed to remain stable for less than about 15 per cent of its possible length. Even with that in mind, I have faith that the devs can get it up to speed in a few months, and I am very much looking forward to playing this game.

[Jaidal]

[...] No, no one is rooting for Magna Mundi to fail - the only people who are actively trying to make it fail seem to be the developers.

That's quite the absolute statement to make. Do you claim Omniscience?

But that's exactly what those statements imply.

Not, Automatically. It's essentially a scientific statement of fact, given that Science is unable to depict absolute certainty.

[ywhtptgtfo]

But that's exactly what those statements imply.

What that statement literally meant is never really in question.

This particular statement is translated into this assertion: Approximate stability of game lasts more than t = 50 years, which provides no information on what happens after the 50 years (CTD? Continued stability?).

It is common to interpret this statement as "What happens after the 50 years is CTD", as it is common for advertisers to present their product in as best possible a state as possible and if the game is forever stable, then it simply wouldn't make sense to have such a low upper bound of stability interval.

What k_merse and/or his fans offered much later on in the thread is that the (common?) testing interval of the game is 50 years and thus the statement made earlier appear simply to be a pragmatic lower bound estimate.

Anyway, what's raises eyebrows was that k_merse also stated earlier that the game may crash every few decades or so:

Oh, no! Of course we made longer test, full length tests, hands-off tests too. And the game is fine. A CTD may come around in every few decades though.

and that his tests were not simply limited to the 50 years as some of the fans asserted.

Anyway. Let's just let this slip by as a case of bad communication (as others here also commented on).

[EnragedKiwi]

It'd be nice if this game could be dropped onto my hard drive instead of into the nether.

[dskod1]

hey just so you guys know s1234567890m has edited his very first post in this thread (IE the second post) with all the dev comments in this thread

CASTELLON EDIT: To be clear it is an edited selective list of posts.

[yak]

That is not what the statement means or implies, that's just how you (and admittedly, quite a few others) personally interpret it. For example, some equivalently constructed statements:

"The San Andreas Fault can go 30-50 years without rupturing" "Vesuvius can go 30-50 years without blowing up" "I can go 30-50 years without dying" "A nuclear reactor can go 30-50 years without melting down" "My house won't fall down in the next 30-50 years"

None of those statements imply that immediately (or even soon) after the stated time period is up SanFran drops into the sea/ Naples gets obliterated etc etc.

If your car could go for 30-50km without refuelling and you would have to drive for 51km would you go find a gas station or not ?

[s1234567890m]

hey just so you guys know s1234567890m has edited his very first post in this thread (IE the second post) with all the dev comments in this thread

i justed copy pasted them from an italian site

[minispace]

That Italian site seems to have introduced a bunch of strange typos--many of those quotes don't exactly match what is in this thread. Are you open to corrections?

[s1234567890m]

That Italian site seems to have introduced a bunch of strange typos--many of those quotes don't exactly match what is in this thread. Are you open to corrections?

if its posted here ill edit it into the post

[Mattias Lilja]

Hi,

just to clarify;

I saw a comment from Danevang being construed as an official comment from Paradox. He was a contractor that did some very nice art for us during 2011, but has never been an employee or any such thing.

Cheers,
Mattias

[Dr. B]

Greetings, I am a long-time user of MMtM, and a fan of Paradox for their excellent EU games. So many hours I and my brother have spent on EU I and II (only single player). Magna Mundi transformed, for me, EUIII from an unpolished diamond into a shining jewel.

So I look to MMtG with high hopes. A game should imo be fun and balanced, no matter what features it has. It should of course be in working condition. I give my best wishes to the hard-working dev team, I hope you will finish a product you can look back on with great pride.

I can also respect Paradox's QA issues very much, for should a game not be fun, balanced or working, then who would want it? I hope you can find a solution that will save Magna Mundi, and release a fun, balanced, quality game.

Good luck to everyone involved!