Why buy an expansion when PDX can't/won't fix existing glaring bugs?

[praftd]

What is the purpose for forums again? Is it only to discuss how great the game is - no criticism allowed?

What solution are you offering? What are you actually advocating for? All you are saying PDX is not fixing bugs to your satisfaction and you won't be buying more DLC?

What value does that offer? All you are doing is venting to placate your own frustrations, you aren't actually offering solutions are anything of value. PDX already knows their sales numbers. They already try to fix bugs.

Again, I ask, what exactly are you offering here?

 

[masteriw]

What solution are you offering? What are you actually advocating for? All you are saying PDX is not fixing bugs to your satisfaction and you won't be buying more DLC?

What value does that offer? All you are doing is venting to placate your own frustrations, you aren't actually offering solutions are anything of value. PDX already knows their sales numbers. They already try to fix bugs.

Again, I ask, what exactly are you offering here?

The solution proposed by OP is, actually, quite simple: fix the barrack-related bugs because they're so annoying and have been around for too long.

You are just angry that people are getting more and more unhappy at the game. They are threatening the "Victoria 3 confirmed" dream. They must be silenced before this game goes the way of the Imperator. If only this peasant rabble weren't so annoying, then PDS games would be able to reach their full potential, right?

 

[FrontLine1111]

What solution are you offering? What are you actually advocating for? All you are saying PDX is not fixing bugs to your satisfaction and you won't be buying more DLC?

What value does that offer? All you are doing is venting to placate your own frustrations, you aren't actually offering solutions are anything of value. PDX already knows their sales numbers. They already try to fix bugs.

Again, I ask, what exactly are you offering here?

What am I advocating for? I'm not sure how I could be more clear but let me try again: the game is a bug-ridden mess, so, uh, maybe FIX BUGS. There are far too many bugs and the rate at which bugs are being addressed is far too slow for me to consider buying expansions. As a customer, I am letting PDX know that, speaking for myself, I won't by buying any expansions with the game in this state. Maybe others feel the same way. This is a forum where we discuss such things. What exactly is your problem with this?

They may have given up on it - I don't know - it seems that may be the case judging by the attention it's getting. I actually love the time period and this type of game so I'm still clinging to hope it'll be improved to an acceptable level. It isn't there yet.

 

[FrontLine1111]

We do have these in our wanted list of fixes coming with 1.7 (with the area causing this from annexation/split states being the likely culprit), however the hiring bug you say it is possible that it is caused by needing more officers via qualifications.

(As for learning Godot, I wish you luck I am also looking at it myself for fun!)

When I mod up training rate (to +100%) it seems to resolve the problem of it taking too long to staff barracks. With a normal training rate staffing often happens too slowly and they seem to lose people faster than they gain them - just as other buildings often do. Maybe barracks need more special treatment when it comes to the flow of people in/out.

 

[Brynjar]

I did not expect the game to be this bad, both design and tech. I also didn't expect that two years later it hasn't gotten better.
What's you point anyway? You just sounds like don't like criticism for something that isn't even yours.

My point is: Don't buy something you don't know the state of if you care about the state of the product.

 

[dr_AllCOM3]

What am I advocating for? I'm not sure how I could be more clear but let me try again: the game is a bug-ridden mess, so, uh, maybe FIX BUGS. There are far too many bugs and the rate at which bugs are being addressed is far too slow for me to consider buying expansions. As a customer, I am letting PDX know that, speaking for myself, I won't by buying any expansions with the game in this state. Maybe others feel the same way. This is a forum where we discuss such things. What exactly is your problem with this?

They may have given up on it - I don't know - it seems that may be the case judging by the attention it's getting. I actually love the time period and this type of game so I'm still clinging to hope it'll be improved to an acceptable level. It isn't there yet.

Exactly. I paid money for this game, I'm disappointed, I voice my opinion here.

I can't even enjoy the bugs, because the game runs so slow after the first 30-40 years I can't play any further. Two years and the game runs slower than the release version. The community has even precisely identified the causes, pops and trade, but Paradox thinks it's more important that every factory employs 24 different pops and has 16 trade routes.

 

[PDX_Pelly]

When I mod up training rate (to +100%) it seems to resolve the problem of it taking too long to staff barracks. With a normal training rate staffing often happens too slowly and they seem to lose people faster than they gain them - just as other buildings often do. Maybe barracks need more special treatment when it comes to the flow of people in/out.

Hmm, ok I'll pass on the feedback!

 

[PDX_Pelly]

Exactly. I paid money for this game, I'm disappointed, I voice my opinion here.

I can't even enjoy the bugs, because the game runs so slow after the first 30-40 years I can't play any further. Two years and the game runs slower than the release version. The community has even precisely identified the causes, pops and trade, but Paradox thinks it's more important that every factory employs 24 different pops and has 16 trade routes.

It is completely fine to voice criticism and feedback, as always just don't be unpleasant.

We do know what the slowdown issue within 1.6.x is but can't easily pull it back from the 1.7 version due to code changes We have had some other incremental small performance help come from looking at other areas, but they are small improvements.

As for pops and trade, they are areas we are looking at too, for pops it would take some more drastic looking at (while there was some performance gain from taking capitalist/aristocrat pops from buildings into manors etc it was offset a bit by the foreign investment system), for trade I know we are looking at this in the future from our last post-release plans post:

• Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

Which may help, seeing as it would entail some changes.

 

[dr_AllCOM3]

it would take some more drastic looking at

Performance indeed needs something drastic. My CPU is three generations above the recommended specs and the game runs at snails pace.
Something BIG has to happen. Slash the pop variety to a minimum? Heavily limit trade route number and calculation updates? Don't have pops in buildings (make it something abstract like production is just a general supply & demand)?
Performance won't be acceptable until you decide to abandon one or more design ideas.

 

[MatthewP]

Performance indeed needs something drastic. My CPU is three generations above the recommended specs and the game runs at snails pace.
Something BIG has to happen. Slash the pop variety to a minimum? Heavily limit trade route number and calculation updates? Don't have pops in buildings (make it something abstract like production is just a general supply & demand)?
Performance won't be acceptable until you decide to abandon one or more design ideas.

Have you tried reducing graphics specs to absolute minimum? I found the game nearly unplayable, then I went through and turned off everything, minimized frame rate, etc. Now it runs well, and tbh I hardly notice whatever has changed.

Not to dismiss efforts to improve perf: it can never be too good, and maybe still slows down in the late game (I never pay much past 1900).

 

[dr_AllCOM3]

Have you tried reducing graphics specs to absolute minimum?

Graphics specs have nothing to do with how fast a game week passes. You're confusing GPU with CPU. I don't care if I play at 10 FPS or 60 FPS (I play at 60 FPS btw). Mentioning "graphics specs" means you don't understand the issue.
Recommended is a 2600X. I would not want to play on a 2600X. That's like half the speed of what I experience. Technically playable, but who like to suffer that much? Is everyone at Paradox running a 7900X3D? If not it's pretty clear they never play a game all the end to 1936.

 

[GermanDave]

Not buying more DLC is the most logical strategy. There is also an alternative or additional strategy of remembering that no matter how bad you think the game is doing there will always be the Rome thing (I have no idea what went on there and only remember hearing muffled screams that made it through my my filter).

 

[MatthewP]

Graphics specs have nothing to do with how fast a game week passes. You're confusing GPU with CPU. I don't care if I play at 10 FPS or 60 FPS (I play at 60 FPS btw). Mentioning "graphics specs" means you don't understand the issue.
Recommended is a 2600X. I would not want to play on a 2600X. That's like half the speed of what I experience. Technically playable, but who like to suffer that much? Is everyone at Paradox running a 7900X3D? If not it's pretty clear they never play a game all the end to 1936.

Have you tried it? Because in fact I reduced graphics specs and it sped up a lot. And I've seen many other reports of the same, for example this thread.

Maybe you don't understand this as well as you think you do?

 

[Notme1]

It is completely fine to voice criticism and feedback, as always just don't be unpleasant.

We do know what the slowdown issue within 1.6.x is but can't easily pull it back from the 1.7 version due to code changes We have had some other incremental small performance help come from looking at other areas, but they are small improvements.

As for pops and trade, they are areas we are looking at too, for pops it would take some more drastic looking at (while there was some performance gain from taking capitalist/aristocrat pops from buildings into manors etc it was offset a bit by the foreign investment system), for trade I know we are looking at this in the future from our last post-release plans post:

• Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

Which may help, seeing as it would entail some changes.

There may be bugs with scripting, as this mod helps a lot.
Some of those could be made options so you can disable script selectively to make game run faster at cost of making pops all look same and making flags permanent (not changing with government or something)
Dynamic cap of FPS to 20 - 30 while running at speed 5 also would help.

Steam Workshop::Profiling-based Optimization (Performance Mod)

steamcommunity.com

 

[Notme1]

Have you tried reducing graphics specs to absolute minimum? I found the game nearly unplayable, then I went through and turned off everything, minimized frame rate, etc. Now it runs well, and tbh I hardly notice whatever has changed.

Not to dismiss efforts to improve perf: it can never be too good, and maybe still slows down in the late game (I never pay much past 1900).

You got backwards: Making graphics prettier helps game go faster as FPS decreases - it is syncing each frame with game data that causes slow down (drawback of RAM optimization)

You don't need to decrease all settings - just cap FPS to lowest value and disable v-sync.

 

[MatthewP]

You got backwards: Making graphics prettier helps game go faster as FPS decreases - it is syncing each frame with game data that causes slow down (drawback of RAM optimization)

You don't need to decrease all settings - just cap FPS to lowest value and disable v-sync.

Fair, my understanding is consistent with this: that the CPU operations needed to tell the GPU what to process each frame are what cause the slowdown, at least for some systems (obviously bottlenecks can vary).

I think it's worth caveating that increasing graphics settings might help the game go faster if FPS will decrease as a result and CPU is the bottleneck and none of those settings cost CPU. I don't think that's a given in general, and I don't think increasing graphics quality is really good general advice for people looking for a speedup.

That said,

You don't need to decrease all settings - just cap FPS to lowest value and disable v-sync.

This is a more precise recommendation than mine and probably better for people who care about graphics quality. They seem to be easily the most important settings anyway.

 

[PDX_Pelly]

There may be bugs with scripting, as this mod helps a lot.
Some of those could be made options so you can disable script selectively to make game run faster at cost of making pops all look same and making flags permanent (not changing with government or something)
Dynamic cap of FPS to 20 - 30 while running at speed 5 also would help.

Steam Workshop::Profiling-based Optimization (Performance Mod)

steamcommunity.com

We are looking at fixing various scripting bugs and overly performance impactful scripts for 1.7.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Graphics specs have nothing to do with how fast a game week passes. You're confusing GPU with CPU. I don't care if I play at 10 FPS or 60 FPS (I play at 60 FPS btw). Mentioning "graphics specs" means you don't understand the issue.

A lot more of the game than you think is offloaded to the GPU. My game crawled if it didn't crash outright until I updated my GPU.