.png){kind=avatar}
Also notice how Johan is going full EA these days. "muh multiplayer" I have never played multi and likely never will. How long until the Mountain Dew and Doritos DLC?
No China map expansion confirmed
- Thread starter seeds24
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think it is a sure sign that Paradox will be the EA of grand strategy when two forum posters can simultaneously invoke that evil unspeakable company at the same moment.
When Johan mentioned Blizzard as his favorite game development studio in interview, I couldn't help but laugh, because Paradox's (or EA's) recent releases are completely at odds with the huge, concisely planned, and beautifully optimized expansions that Blizzard releases for their games. (a fact that one must appreciate whether or not they actually like the content.)
Not at all.
While first off, yes i went a bit into hyperbole to extend the point i was making, the initial statement is not without merit. While yes you can have benefits from testing the game with other players in Multiplayer, it does not mean its inherently correct, after all you cannot, and should not even, ignore that the AI is part of the gameplay, that there is still a singleplayer component to consider. Which is not really being considered. What after all is the benefit of five more years of Truce, to the player in Multiplayer? Unless the penalty includes something that isnt just "other nations will like you less", which another human player will not care about in the least. As such the change affects primarily singleplayer, rather than multiplayer. Having to sit around and do "fuck all" for 15 years because of a change is not good game design at all i think. If there was a trade-off to actually be able to do something in the meantime there would be no issue i think.
Which he could have easily phrased that way, Reddit is not limited to 140 characters like Twitter or something. The phrasing of the words still leaves to be desired ultimately. He is claiming to know "better" however, which is essentially a slap in the face to the playerbase who actually plays those games. Now i will not say he cant play his own games, but being the developer he is inherently biased because he created, or helped create the game. His track record also wouldnt really make him immune from fucking it up badly enough that said track record had a black mark.
You are now using the same Argument from Authority fallacy, just to preface my rebuttal.
I have never stated i know better than he does, i have stated that it is ultimately self-defeating to make a game which sells well and gains high scores in some arbitrary system. Rather the focus should be on making a good game, the sales and scores will come in afterwards and if either is lacking then you can see where you went wrong. The Multiplayer argument also falls flat when statistically only 15% of all EU4 Players actually play Multiplayer, that means the highest percentage of your playerbase is not interested in multiplayer, or not exclusively at least.
Therefore balancing the game around what players COULD be doing in multiplayer is pointless unless said playerbase actually is for the majority making use of the multiplayer component. As to how big these numbers are of their internal matches is redundant to the topic, i merely used a figure at random, whether that figure is entirely correct or not does not change the argument im making. If as you said 32 is the maximum, then whether i had said 10 or 32 is pointless, wouldnt you say? As to answer the other questions, no i have no idea how to fix the multiplayer issues such as desync, but if the focus is around multiplayer, i.e. balancing is done in multiplayer, then perhaps a better idea would be to actually have the multiplayer fully functional, which would potentially lead to more people actually playing against other human players.
And this is where the Argument from Authority comes in. Yes they have more data at hand as to how people might play in multiplayer, what they do, tactics, country choices and so forth, yet you have failed to point out just what 15 Year Truce adds, as i said another human player might not even care about it and as such ignore it entirely, even breaking these truces since the only one who actually cares is the AI. Being resigned to waiting around 15 years with nothing to do is a bad idea. So unless they also add things to do during the meantime, it seems like an arbitrary change for no reason other than that they felt you should sit around and do nothing for that time. If a game becomes a chore and boring, it stops being fun and people stop playing.
How so? I feel like CK2 has been pretty consistent, unlike EU4. CK2 gets very few nerfs and re-balances, and when it does it's usually after a new mechanic is introduced, like the pagans after Old Gods. And even then it's still a one way change -- you don't see pagans getting nerfed, un-nerfed, and re-nerfed over and over in every new patch.
They are getting turned on their heads in different ways: EUIV gets rebalanced, CKII gets new features that don't work, or new patches reach around and break old mechanics.
In either case, you get a gaming experience that is not stable and doesn't carry over between patches.
A-D, you keep on asserting that Johan's sole experience of the game is multiplayer. That assertion is wrong. Not only do you have no idea what Johan's experience actually is, he has stated in the past that he also plays the game in single player (and incidently gets the results of other peoples play both in the office and beta tests, and overnight runs etc etc). At that point, you are skating on even thinner ice, because you are also asserting he is a liar.
In any event, the relevance of your complaining about Johan's EU4 comments to this topic, on this board (which isn't EU4), is nil. Kindly desist.
In any event, the relevance of your complaining about Johan's EU4 comments to this topic, on this board (which isn't EU4), is nil. Kindly desist.
Leaving aside that RoI was a special case, because it added so much, and then they had to fiddle with CPU-use (which they warned people about at beta time), they've actually slightly improved in that regard. LoR gave the Byzantines access to imperial reconquest at all times, the Republic had several mechanics nerfed, and the Old Gods started with the Magyars keeping their Crimean territory (and the norse had way too many good troops and leaders). Ah yes, and there were a number of other long standing bugs that the last patch squelched (I mean they finally noticed that republican spouses had male feudal names - that one was a day 1 Republic bug).
That said, they would have probably been better off declaring that patch process feature complete sooner than they did.
Even though something marketed as CKIII it doesn't mean the codebase is significantly changed - in fact it is both policy and practice of programmers to fix a codebase by pruning it and *not* replace it. That's a time sink better used elsewhere.
Also, EUIII+expansions is still a more polished game and more in depth than EUIV currently is with all published expansions. EUIV is has more or less feature parity with EUIII but it isn't nearly as polished yet.
As for CKIII, it will exist if the market needs it. CKII can be upgraded indefinitely as long as people buy it, so in that sense it can almost have the old MMO pay-per-month model. However, unlike MMOs, the threshold for new players becomes ever more difficult since they have to pay for all expansions at once which stands at 152.58 USD full price. Sure you could subtract some sprites and music but it won't get you under 100 bucks. That's a tall threshold and people really only get in when the bulk of the game is at 75% off.
So this business model demands a reset, sooner or later. Then we will have Crusader Kings III, and it will be based on the exact same codebase as CKII. That's just practical.
That's very true, I totally agree with you. What annoys me is the duplicity of Johann (unless his english is just that limited, then I apologize) when he claims that EUIV is "balanced" around multiplayer and that's great for singleplayer -- if only that were the case. The game is probably balanced in multiplayer etc, but *features* are added or subtracted because of multiplayer.
That's beyond balancing, unless that term can be applied to designing a game in general. Which is farther than the term can stretch.
EUIV is not a multiplayer game. In fact it is mentioned in reviews, just mentioned as something to avoid (e.g. http://www.destructoid.com/review-europa-universalis-iv-259939.phtml )
EUIV will never be a multiplayer game primarily or to a large degree. It is logistically not practical, it isn't very well supported (irony, I know) and is in the end arguably worse than just getting a board of Risk out and gathering a few friends.
The games Johann has made, the EU ones in particular, are surprisingly good single player games and have *no* competition. They have always been "ok", but never excelled. The UI is consistently terrible, improving, but terrible. Crucial information is either hidden, hard to find or hard to understand. The game is unfortunately in the hands of a person who is dedicated to his vision, but his vision is so short sighted. A pity.
But what is one to do? Play games from the non-existent competition grand strategy game? :wacko:
Yeah, and the answer was about *features*. There's a huge distinction between *features* and *balancing*
Johan: "3) i'd love some working mechanics for MP" when asked whether there any features from EU4 other than naval battles that you guys want to bring to CK2.
I'm sure balancing with MP is a relatively cheap and effective way to figure out how mechanics work, but the moment a feature is added or subtracted *because* of multiplayer, it's no longer balancing. Then the game is just being designed *around* multiplayer (for no good reason because it is just a slightly more popular feature than smallpox)
Don't make excused for Johan or PDS, they have people they pay for that.
Exactly. We have to remember that PDX sees dollar signs just as much as other companies. If an expansion like that could bring them in swathes of cash, they'd do it.
I want China eventually, but not for a long time. I am glad they are going to improve what they have first.
No, but the ones always going on about "feudalism" and HRE mechanics sure are.
Hm. I hope it's not a Steppe expansion in that case, as much as I'd love on, that'll likely cut off any possibility for a Chinese expansion, which I would eventually like to see.
Here's hoping for a peacetime DLC
.
Here's hoping for a peacetime DLC
.
Hm. I hope it's not a Steppe expansion in that case, as much as I'd love on, that'll likely cut off any possibility for a Chinese expansion, which I would eventually like to see.
Here's hoping for a peacetime DLC
Steppe DLC preventing a China DLC? Count me in, the steppes very much need work, and there is no need for China.
Fleshing out the nomads/Central Asia is actually a good idea and makes a lot of sense; unlike adding China.