Already waiting patches - fastest Paradox game that I stopped playing

[praftd]

I'd say stellaris has the edge. That said, I agree. I think the underlying game systems are great. I think the framework is great. I think the amount of content is pretty good (arguably one of the best for a PDX game). But the bugs and imbalance is pretty damn frustrating.

 

[praftd]

This is what you have to swallow if you choose to buy an early release game

I think something people need to realize is that there is no fundamental distinction between "Early Access" and a full release in 2020 for most games/software. It is nothing more than a marketing trick. One that works apparently.

Reminds of kind of how where I work we do "prototype" releases for customers. But in reality the level of development and support is exactly the same as doing major releases. It is just a cheap (actually free) way of soothing customer complaints when major changes happen. Do a release and spend 6 months fixing problems? Endless complaints. Do a "prototype" and spend 6 months fixing problems until release? Feedback.

but this level of bug should not exist in a release version

Priorities and release schedules. Like it or not, call it greedy if you want, but that is the nature of software development. There is a LOT of politics and limitations behind the scenes we don't see. Issues that are likely not easily remindied.

For example, last we heard, they have a massive problem with their (non-existant? small? over-worked?) QA team in general. And you can say "fix it!" but anyone who has worked in this industry knows that is very, very difficult.

 

[Karlington]

I think something people need to realize is that there is no fundamental distinction between "Early Access" and a full release in 2020 for most games/software. It is nothing more than a marketing trick. One that works apparently.

Reminds of kind of how where I work we do "prototype" releases for customers. But in reality the level of development and support is exactly the same as doing major releases. It is just a cheap (actually free) way of soothing customer complaints when major changes happen. Do a release and spend 6 months fixing problems? Endless complaints. Do a "prototype" and spend 6 months fixing problems until release? Feedback.

If you guys call it a prototype, ok, that's one thing.

But to call it a release version when it's not of release version quality is just wrong. If Paradox had released this game as early access then that would have been fine. People know what to expect from early access. Honest, straightforward, and simple.

 

[praftd]

when it's not of release version quality is just wrong.

Arbitrary distinction and entirely subjective. Literally nobody but the developers can make such a declaration.

If Paradox had released this game as early access then that would have been fine.

Exactly. It is marketing fluff and it works. It is literally a slight marketing switch to trick people into thinking there is anything fundamentally different about the release.

They could have done NOTHING different and just said EA and suddenly everything would be okay. Same funding. Same team. Same plans. Same dev cycle. And suddenly people are happy. Human Psychology 101. That is why so many games these days are in "early access" for 1-4 years. They are just renaming the maintenance cycle of development to "early access".

It is kinda like loading bars. Most are total bs. They usually just exist to make the user feel comfortable.

 

[geogus]

Im enjoying the game, see lots of room for improvment but ehat bites me is that my asturias Run, instead of catholics vs muslim things turned in catholics vs vikings thing

 

[Karlington]

Arbitrary distinction and entirely subjective. Literally nobody but the developers can make such a declaration.

It's somewhat subjective, but it's definitely not arbitrary to say that a release version should have an AI that functions on such basic levels as building things.

Exactly. It is marketing fluff and it works. It is literally a slight marketing switch to trick people into thinking there is anything fundamentally different about the release.

They could have done NOTHING different and just said EA and suddenly everything would be okay. Same funding. Same team. Same plans. Same dev cycle. And suddenly people are happy. Human Psychology 101.

It is kinda like loading bars.

Yeah, of course it would have been ok. It would have been okay because then it wouldn't have been misleading. If you tell me you are selling me a new motorbike and show up with one that's all scratched and worn I'm gonna be mad, but if you had told me you were selling me a scratched and worn motorbike it would have been fine to show up with the exact same motorbike.

 

[johnty5]

But to call it a release version when it's not of release version quality is just wrong.

This is utterly absurd and a wilful misrepresentation of what “early access” and “release version” mean.

99% of the problems being cited are just balance issues to be resolved - most of which are literally going to be tweaks to numbers in the game files we can all see.

Comparing the need to tweak values in the code and fix a handful of bugs to a game being “early access” is ridiculous. It makes me wonder whether you’ve ever played an early access game at all.

 

[Six-Toed Sprocket]

Nowhere near as bad as you say.

CK3 is in far better shape than CK2 was when it was released. I hope catholicism doesnt just become a borg like it was in CK2.

 

[Karlington]

This is utterly absurd and a wilful misrepresentation of what “early access” and “release version” mean.

99% of the problems being cited are just balance issues to be resolved - most of which are literally going to be tweaks to numbers in the game files we can all see.

Comparing the need to tweak values in the code and fix a handful of bugs to a game being “early access” is ridiculous. It makes me wonder whether you’ve ever played an early access game at all.

If you have to wonder whether I've ever played an early access game at all then it can't possibly be willful misrepresentation on my side, eh?

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to the topic, shall we?

The AI not even building any buildings is a pretty major issue, and way more than just a "balance issue."

 

[Six-Toed Sprocket]

Yeah the game feels way too empty cuz crusader kings 2 felt like there was way more to do

CK2 had about 400,000 dlcs. As a base game, we got:

Africa - which is hella fun btw
India - which i dont get
Tibet - which i have never played
Burma

There's a few bits and pieces that Id like. But the religious customisation and dynastic perks are great.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

If you have to wonder whether I've ever played an early access game at all then it can't possibly be willful misrepresentation on my side, eh?

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's get back to the topic, shall we?

The AI not even building any buildings is a pretty major issue, and way more than just a "balance issue."

It's always been a problem with the AI in CK2 to build something. The earliest bug report I've found in a cursory search of the bug reports forum was dated Jan 21, 2013. The thread was about trade posts and someone mentioned that the AI was not building upgrades to palaces. That, of course, was fixed. Notice the date on the post and compare it to The Republic release. The Republic was released 5 days earlier.

Notice, I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying that there have been AI problems going back 7 3/4 years.

 

[MR.Finley7]

I’m almost at year 1100 and I haven’t experienced much of what everyone seems to have troubles with. I haven’t seen outbreaks of heresy (although mb it’s too early?) and although Scandinavia seems over powered, I don’t see any problem with them snagging some territory here and there in war torn France and Spain. I honestly have only had two or three bastard issues in over 200 years so I haven’t seen the illegitimacy issues everyone is having.

The stuff that bothers me is the way house and dynastic seniority is determined; it makes no sense that it follows direct primogeniture from one house head to another, why wouldn’t it go to the most powerful/influential family patriarch?

also allied war contributions measurements seem bugged to hell; I’ve taken enemy cities and smashed their armies and gotten war contribution scores of 0

 

[Karlington]

It's always been a problem with the AI in CK2 to build something. The earliest bug report I've found in a cursory search of the bug reports forum was dated Jan 21, 2013. The thread was about trade posts and someone mentioned that the AI was not building upgrades to palaces. That, of course, was fixed. Notice the date on the post and compare it to The Republic release. The Republic was released 5 days earlier.

Notice, I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying that there have been AI problems going back 7 3/4 years.

Huh, interesting. I wish we could have had a fix in 5 days this time as well.

It's funny how the same issues keep repeating. Like the excessive seduction that WoL introduced, and we got it now as well. I remember reading about Paradox saying that they had to put a cap on seducing players because if the player was a female ruler in the early game they'd get absolutely spammed with seduction attempts since there were so few female rulers. So I guess they all seduce someone else instead of the player? Makes sense, but it also tells me that they knew there were a lot of seducers out there in CK3, they knew the history of issues it caused in CK2 (they even introduced a game rule to remove it, for goodness sake) yet it still ended up the way it is now.

I really hope we have some nice fixes coming up in the near future. This could be a great game, and the writing and events and more "story like" aspects of the game are of high quality IMO.

 

[RelVleDy]

meh, it's not a big deal. Some guys wear lipstick.

Yea, but all handsome-trait men? The lipstick is tied to the trait, and it's congenital, so in the world of CK3, if you're deemed "handsome," then you're forced to wear lipstick regardless of culture, religion, etc. That can't be working as intended.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

Huh, interesting. I wish we could have had a fix in 5 days this time as well.

It's funny how the same issues keep repeating. Like the excessive seduction that WoL introduced, and we got it now as well. I remember reading about Paradox saying that they had to put a cap on seducing players because if the player was a female ruler in the early game they'd get absolutely spammed with seduction attempts since there were so few female rulers. So I guess they all seduce someone else instead of the player? Makes sense, but it also tells me that they knew there were a lot of seducers out there in CK3, they knew the history of issues it caused in CK2 (they even introduced a game rule to remove it, for goodness sake) yet it still ended up the way it is now.

I really hope we have some nice fixes coming up in the near future. This could be a great game, and the writing and events and more "story like" aspects of the game are of high quality IMO.

It wasn't fixed until 9 days after the release for the trade post bug. I have no information about building palace upgrades bug being fixed.

The point is that by your very definition CK2 was "Early Access" for the entirety of its development due to bugs. That's a total of 8 years. Might I suggest you tone down the hyperbolic statements?

EDIT: I forgot to add that there are still a lot of bugs in CK2, so that means it must be still "Early Access".

 

[Karlington]

It wasn't fixed until 9 days after the release for the trade post bug. I have no information about building palace upgrades bug being fixed.

The point is that by your very definition CK2 was "Early Access" for the entirety of its development due to bugs. That's a total of 8 years. Might I suggest you tone down the hyperbolic statements?

EDIT: I forgot to add that there are still a lot of bugs in CK2, so that means it must be still "Early Access".

I said that a bug where the the AI basically doesn't build anything ever is not release version quality. Don't try to twist that into meaning that the presence of any bugs ever means that a product is basically an early release product.

In fact I specifically wrote "We all know that 100% freedom from bugs is a fantasy, but this level of bug should not exist in a release version."

Toning down the hyperbole is good advice. Might I suggest that I may not be the one who needs to hear that the most, though?

 

[ThePatriot1776]

I said that a bug where the the AI basically doesn't build anything ever is not release version quality. Don't try to twist that into meaning that the presence of any bugs ever means that a product is basically an early release product.

In fact I specifically wrote "We all know that 100% freedom from bugs is a fantasy, but this level of bug should not exist in a release version."

Toning down the hyperbole is good advice. Might I suggest that I may not be the one who needs to hear that the most, though?

That bug of the AI not building anything happened in every single DLC release for CK2. That's just what happened and by your metric that means it was "Early Access". Which makes my statement about you being hyperbolic a true one.

I was playing CK2 since September 13, 2012. I have almost 2k hours in it. I started with Sons of Abraham and the prior DLCs. I wrote a mod for CK2 etc...

I didn't make a claim about something not being ready for release and accuse the company of releasing an Early Access product. You did.

 

[Karlington]

That bug of the AI not building anything happened in every single DLC release for CK2. That's just what happened and by your metric that means it was "Early Access". Which makes my statement a true one.

I was playing CK2 since September 13, 2012. I have almost 2k hours in it. I started with Sons of Abraham and the prior DLCs. I wrote a mod for CK2 etc...

I didn't make a claim about something not being ready for release and accuse the company of releasing an Early Access product. You did.

If "every single DLC release for CK2" had the same issue with "the AI not building anything" then I think that's a pretty crystal clear sign that Paradox kept releasing things that weren't fit for release, no? And it does make you wonder why they make the same mistake "every single time."

I am taking your word that this was indeed the case. I haven't looked through old bug reports myself.

(That doesn't mean that the base game itself wasn't a release-worthy version once its AI was building properly, but according to you Paradox kept releasing "every single DLC" with the same fundamental flaws.)

 

[ThePatriot1776]

If "every single DLC release for CK2" had the same issue with "the AI not building anything" then I think that's a pretty crystal clear sign that Paradox kept releasing things that weren't fit for release, no? And it does make you wonder why they make the same mistake "every single time."

I am taking your word that this was indeed the case. I haven't looked through old bug reports myself.

(That doesn't mean that the base game itself wasn't a release-worthy version once its AI was building properly, but according to you Paradox kept releasing "every single DLC" with the same fundamental flaws.)

They kept releasing product to keep the lights on, employees paid, and money coming in. I guess you'd prefer that PDox and PI not be in business now right?

Code is hard. Code is finicky. Code has bugs. Code will never be 100% bug free.

It's not a mistake about the AI. AIs are not really artificially intelligent. They are just bits of code that tell the computer how to handle certain things in the game. Any alteration to the scripting language or in the engine can result in a broken AI. It's just how it is.

If you can design a game as complex as this one and have it not break every time you do something go for it.

With that said, this is my last reply to you. Good night.

 

[Karlington]

They kept releasing product to keep the lights on, employees paid, and money coming in. I guess you'd prefer that PDox and PI not be in business now right?

What was that about hyperbole again?

Code is hard. Code is finicky. Code has bugs. Code will never be 100% bug free.

It's not a mistake about the AI. AIs are not really artificially intelligent. They are just bits of code that tell the computer how to handle certain things in the game. Any alteration to the scripting language or in the engine can result in a broken AI. It's just how it is.

If you can design a game as complex as this one and have it not break every time you do something go for it.

With that said, this is my last reply to you. Good night.

Good night sounds like a good idea. We're just going in circles at this point. I think we're both aware of where the other stands, and our different views of what is acceptable in a release version or not. Let's just agree to disagree at this point.

At least Paradox have said that they are aware of the issue now, and hopefully we can both at least agree that that is a good thing, that we are looking forward to seeing it fixed, and that with some work this has the potential to be a truly amazing game.