Well, what is a 'good update' then? Who decides that? You? Me? The community? PDX?
A 'good update' is subjective.
- 7
- 3
Can you stop with ridiculous meme focuses?
- Thread starter Husein
- 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.
Well, what is a 'good update' then? Who decides that? You? Me? The community? PDX?
A 'good update' is subjective.
I mean that content designed by PDX developers is as bad (or worse) as the content designed by freelancers.
We asked to do more history, because we feel it's been neglected for alt-history. If PDX needs to do less alt-history for that, I'll take it. But that's not "I want less alt-history". We want at least to have the same priority for history and for alt-history. It's what I said before, how can I possibly want less alt-history if I only play alt-history?
The other complaint is that we want good content, both in history and in alt-history, which we aren't getting.
"Good is subjective". No. Good is partly objective and partly subjective. Everyone that plays TNO praises it for its good content and alt-history. Does that mean that we are all wrong because good is subjective and TNO may be actually bad? No, if so many people agree, it's because it's good. Personal likings affect how much we like content, not if content is good. Content is good or bad by itself. I can dislike something but recognize it's good; or I can like something I know it's bad.
PDX decides, but we can suggest things and debate about their decisions, can't we?
Good isn't totally subjective, read above.
- 5
- 3
I agree. But I do enjoy
Ok, let's start from the top: I do not agree with your statement about the quality of the content. I believe that (maybe with the exception of Greece) the freelancers did a fantastic job of building focus-trees and experimenting a bit within the given mechanics to create something new.
Just a small contradiction: First you say you want less alt-hist if that gets you more history; then you state the opposite
I believe that esp with BftB we got execeptionally good content and again, the historical paths feel fleshed out for me. Bulgaraia got its own mechanic to have the status of "being at peace, but still gaining its territory while the Axis fights someone" and Turkey can medle with all three factions to get a bunch of deals for its own good.
How is this content not good?
And now we step into the go'old minefield... We can talk about good as objective (which is quite hard to do) or subjective good as in "i like it, despite maybe not being objectivly good." I have been in enough debates to know that just because a lot of people like it, it doesn't make that thing automaticly good. My personal option would be the Star Wars Sequels released by Disney, since they are objectively bad quality, esp. Episode 8, contradicting plot-lines, characters motiviations and goals flip-flopping around; that stuff. A lot of people (used) to like the Sequels, and yet it ain't good.
"I can dislike something but recognize it's good; or I can like something I know it's bad." - i agree with you on that.
- 2
Because I want good content. Vanilla doesn't have it. Vanilla having good content includes having good history. It doesn't have history and it doesn't have alt-history either. There's no reason to play vanilla.Just a small contradiction: First you say you want less alt-hist if that gets you more history; then you state the opposite
Because it has too many holes. I agree that the size of the content has improved a lot, that's undeniable, but high quality means not only having a lot of content, but not having bugs too, and BftB came more holes than ever: Bulgaria stealing land, Bulgaria coring all of Balkans (which doesn't make any sense), Ottoman Empire and Greek formables having wrong state IDs for its coring decisions... I said that PDX did even worse, because their content is buggy too while being smaller.
- 4
- 3
I do play more vanilla then any other mods. If you don't that your thing. Bu i see a reason in playing vanilla. And i do believe vanilla's got good content. Agree to disagree i guess.
Bulgaria coring the Balkans is not a bug. It is stated in the focus that it is the intention to do so. Yugos coring the world was a bug tough. And bugs can be fixed and have already been fixed partially. And i would like to ask, if the bugs get fixed, where is the acutal content of this country pack bad?
- 2
I think people get upset because basic stuff is unfixed since years but work is put into minor things, like focuses of minor nations. These things should be icing on the cake of a solid bug free base game not primary focus.
- 5
- 2
Yeah, but as a company PDX has to keep a) the people that don't fix bugs busy aka. conent designers/art department and stuff, and on the plus side b) they can make money off of it. A focus tree designer does not fix bugs with the frontline AI. PDX
Bulgaria coring the Balkans isn't a bug, it's a design error. But to the user it doesn't matter bug or design error. Yugoslavia can core Transylvania, Bulgaria can core Yugoslavia. One is a bug and one isn't, but for the user it feels the same. Absurd and immersion-breaking. That's why I prefer using the word error and not bug, because errors include intended stuff.
And the fact that they fixed Yugoslavia coring Europe but didn't fix Yugoslavia coring Transylvania proves that vanilla isn't good quality. They can't even fix bugs properly. Romania suffers from the same, fixes and more fixes because devs don't seem to be able to do things right. Bulgaria stealing land from its allies proves they didn't even test the DLC before release, or that they don't care at all about bugs.
Agree.
Content designers do fix bugs. In fact, most of the bugs of the game are in content and not in AI or mechanics. AI and mechanics need to improve, but aren't buggy.
And no, bug fixes don't sell DLCs, but bug fixing is necessary to sell DLCs long-term.
Look at Cyberpunk 2077. They thought that they would sell the same with bugs and it worked short-term... until the world realized how buggy it is.
One day, PDX will have to fix the bugs in HoI IV or players will start leaving. And that day, PDX will have to do an update only to fix bugs, as Frontier Developments had to do with Elite Dangerous. It was basically the same as HoI now: more and more updates, each update added more and more bugs. In the end, they had to surrender to the community and postpone an update to release another one to fix bugs first. Even the most influencial members of the community were complaining about bugs, and that was giving the game bad reputation. In his last video, Taureor already comlplained that BftB has "too many holes", how much time will pass until more content creators complain and PDX is forced to comply?
Last edited:
- 7
- 4
It's a design Choice. If it's good or bad is another thing. But it's not an error, if the devs intend it to work that way!
Bux not being fixed doesn't mean the CONTENT is not good! Arghhh!
I didn't say that they didn't completly, but it's not their main work station.
- 3
- 2
In programming, a bug is a feature that doesn't work as the developer intended.
A design error is a design that works as the developer intended, as it was designed, but that it was badly designed. For example, peace conferences aren't buggy, but everybody agrees they are very badly designed.
Bulgaria coring all the Balkans is obviously wrong, intended or not. The player doesn't care if it's a bug or a design error, it's simply wrong. As Yugoslavia coring Transylvania is wrong.
And content that has too many bugs isn't good content. I don't care how good the Ottoman Empire is supposed to be if the coring decisions are bugged and I can't core Syria because I don't own Kuwait.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
You know, the problem with complaints like this is that it relies on one assumption: the dev so prioritize alt history over historical. But let’s look at the proof for that: Paradox’s marketing and “It’s in the game so they must be prioritizing it!” For the former, marketing in no way shows the actual content of a game (as the recent CP77 fiasco has shown), nor where the devs are putting the most effort. All it shows is what the marketing department thinks people want. Meanwhile we have the dev’s own words about how they prepare for a focus tree, and it involves research, both online and through books, on the historical period. So hardly placing more effort on alt history when they spend weeks learning the actual history.
The other argument I’m seeing is that it takes away from bug fixing, which not really, no. You could argue it does a net amount of harm in terms of bug fixing, and yeah, I’m not going to argue that point since pretty much all of PDX’s design structure is sprint ahead and fix what you can until you can’t, then work on fixing what’s in the game with overhauls and changes being on the back burner. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the HOI4 team took a few months like EU4 did to concentrate on polishing the game. I may not notice a lot of bugs (and it seems like they fixed an exploit I liked using), but it’s obviously noticeable enough for other people.
And a quick side note, “It’s just a quick fix” isn’t always a legitimate criticism. When you have a long backlog of bugs, testing to make sure you haven’t broken anything with your fixes, and needing to work on bigger issues, you might not have the time even for those “quick fixes.” Even if you do for one, do you have enough for two? Three? Twenty? People seem to forget that it’s not just one bug but many. Even if one “quick fix” is done, there’s more around the corner.
The other argument I’m seeing is that it takes away from bug fixing, which not really, no. You could argue it does a net amount of harm in terms of bug fixing, and yeah, I’m not going to argue that point since pretty much all of PDX’s design structure is sprint ahead and fix what you can until you can’t, then work on fixing what’s in the game with overhauls and changes being on the back burner. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the HOI4 team took a few months like EU4 did to concentrate on polishing the game. I may not notice a lot of bugs (and it seems like they fixed an exploit I liked using), but it’s obviously noticeable enough for other people.
And a quick side note, “It’s just a quick fix” isn’t always a legitimate criticism. When you have a long backlog of bugs, testing to make sure you haven’t broken anything with your fixes, and needing to work on bigger issues, you might not have the time even for those “quick fixes.” Even if you do for one, do you have enough for two? Three? Twenty? People seem to forget that it’s not just one bug but many. Even if one “quick fix” is done, there’s more around the corner.
You know, I was going to let this one pass, but there was this nagging uncomfortableness about your viewpoint, and I think I’ve figured out what it is. Aside from your pathetically snobbish behavior (it’s pretty pathetic to try and compare Katy Perry to Beethoven to try and prove you’re superior; the two serve different purposes and saying one is higher quality than the other is like saying a European style army is better than any other regardless of context), it’s got this almost delusional idea that you’re really on the right side, who cares if everyone else disagrees with you. They’re just sheep, but you, you know the truth and it’s your duty to speak out! And if yourself in the minority? Obviously your sympathizers are just unwilling to speak out! It can’t be that people disagree with you, it’s just that they’re not voicing their agreement for some reason. It’s honestly both annoying and disturbing, and the mindset it encourages is downright toxic due to its refusal to consider any viewpoint but its own as legitimate.
- 7
- 3
Ok, if you think it is bad design, then state your reasons for thinking that. Im sure there are reasonable points you can make, so go ahead!
Ok, Ottomans not coring Syria is one small bug, and its not stopping you from coring all the other territory. I had fun with all the trees playing them. For me it seems you focus heavily on bugs in certain parts of the new focusses, instead of talking about the overall quality. Because i think we were talking about quality of content, right? Im not saying, that bugs can't hinder your experience.
- 2
Nuking London or Moscow is actually incredibly implausible. It would require Germany to take many different actions going back into the early 30s to avoid the brain drain and establish teamwork rather than a competitive system where all the German scientists were as much working against each other as they were the allies.
Combine that with the first nuclear program being brought to an early end via drafting the scientists into the army and the 1942 decision that it couldn't win the war and thus redirecting resoureces away, Germany never truly could have had nukes before the end of the war. Or even in the 40s, all things considering.
Then you have to get into the delivery vehicles. The Luftwaffe completely lacked bombers capable of delivering nukes and even if Germany somehow fought on for several years longer that wouldn't change with everybody opposing them have complete aerial supremacy by the end.
At the end of the day, in a WW2 timeframe, London or Moscow being nuked is only really plausible without a lot of prior changes if the Americans fuck up and accidentally bomb the wrong place.
- 6
- 3
I do not believe. Some time ago I found several discussions (in my native language, Italian) where they show arguments that the Germans could ACTUALLY have the atomic bomb ... but if you as a Nazi Germany want to realistically win the war:
1) you use gases (the Germans already developed sarin in 36/37)
2) do not let the British escape to Dunkirk (and all the French)
3) you coordinate better with your Italian ally and prevent him from making meaningless war declarations (but according to a theory Mussolini had to do it because one of his officers attacked the Greeks without permission and Mussolini did not want to look like a fool who did not know check his officers).
4) do I have to continue?
If the allies were REALLY afraid of an invasion of the UK (sealion) that Germany could go nuclear (telemark) ... they were really afraid it might win. So was it feasible to win? Yes, even if some historians (I assume those who say "so it went so it had to go") are against it.
1) you use gases (the Germans already developed sarin in 36/37)
2) do not let the British escape to Dunkirk (and all the French)
3) you coordinate better with your Italian ally and prevent him from making meaningless war declarations (but according to a theory Mussolini had to do it because one of his officers attacked the Greeks without permission and Mussolini did not want to look like a fool who did not know check his officers).
4) do I have to continue?
If the allies were REALLY afraid of an invasion of the UK (sealion) that Germany could go nuclear (telemark) ... they were really afraid it might win. So was it feasible to win? Yes, even if some historians (I assume those who say "so it went so it had to go") are against it.
- 2
- 1
Agreed - I like Alt History, but it needs to arise from a believable point of divergence not some arbitrary focus tree choice which doesn't do nearly enough fleshing out of the consequences. If the change was in a major power as depicted in every current Alt-History focus tree, it would affect every corner of the world. These alt history branches that Pdx is creating are, no offense to them, half-assed compared to a rich alternate world like Kaiserreich, TNO, Southern Victory or the like. As things are, these changes are entirely isolated to the country in which the change happened which makes no sense given some of the crazy options we have (e.g. Second American Civil War).
Either commit to an entirely new series of Alt-History bookmarks or get out of the Alt-History business when it comes to humungous changes like the Kaiser returning or the ridiculous ones like the Byzantines or Umayyad Spain...leave that to mods. Please!
Either commit to an entirely new series of Alt-History bookmarks or get out of the Alt-History business when it comes to humungous changes like the Kaiser returning or the ridiculous ones like the Byzantines or Umayyad Spain...leave that to mods. Please!
Last edited:
- 6
- 3
Exactly. Why does this seem so absurd to you? The SCW is an event that is already in the game. The natural question is then: could country X have interacted differently with this event? For a country like the UK, there would be a historical background to explore there. For other countries like the Netherlands there are the more generic ways to interact with civil wars.
So the game could be improved by filling in these historical (or very close-to) backgrounds and by refining the generic choices to lead to as plausible outcomes as possible. Doesn't mean all countries will suddenly pile onto Spain as there are of course drawbacks to every choice.
Instead, the game is drilling very deep into a select few alt-history paths which only function in their own small worlds they create.
- 9
- 1
We are getting to the point where the obvious conclusion is that PDX should hire more people to work on HoI. I don't think they are short of money, and they could do everything we ask for: better mechanics, more history, more and better alt-history, less bugs.
That's why Kaiserreich has more content and less bugs than vanilla, simply because its dev team is larger. It has been said multiple times by both sides. There's no magic.
And if the dev team of a mod is larger than the dev team of the whole base game, maaaybe PDX should think about it.
- 6
Yes, I want to remind everyone, that it is paradox, that it says it ... that the SAME DEVELOPERS complain THAT THEY ARE FEW! Obviously, I think, they try to do their best within the deadline that is set and obviously first they have to do the goals set by the big boss:
1) Focus three with alt story
2) new mechanics (regardless of whether they are well done or not.
And I want to be clear that there are 3 types of ideas:
1) Good ideas done well. In sum, the normal that they can / cannot improve (example puppet system, IC division)
2) Bad ideas done well: that is, those ideas that when you think were fantastic, but even if realized to perfection, are just "buggy" as an idea (the most obvious example is the peace system ... which was a novelty on hoi4 .. .be a turn-based game, better manage the peace system a la Hoi and also the occupation ... ah wait that game was played by ONE PERSON!)
3) Good ideas badly done: That is those that ideas, which solved the imbalances / bugs / glitches / various errors are optimally usable (espionage system)
1) Focus three with alt story
2) new mechanics (regardless of whether they are well done or not.
And I want to be clear that there are 3 types of ideas:
1) Good ideas done well. In sum, the normal that they can / cannot improve (example puppet system, IC division)
2) Bad ideas done well: that is, those ideas that when you think were fantastic, but even if realized to perfection, are just "buggy" as an idea (the most obvious example is the peace system ... which was a novelty on hoi4 .. .be a turn-based game, better manage the peace system a la Hoi and also the occupation ... ah wait that game was played by ONE PERSON!)
3) Good ideas badly done: That is those that ideas, which solved the imbalances / bugs / glitches / various errors are optimally usable (espionage system)
- 2
- 1
Many of my posts have more likes and so on turn do not. In calling me pathetic, you are just has dismissive, snobbish, while masquerading as not. You have no basis to assert that I or others taking a similar view are in the minority or not. But yeah, it does not matter me
- 5
- 3
I think he's an alternate history fanboy. I haven't attached the alt-history as such. I have attached the Alt-history as it seems to be the only thing where PDX prioritizes the bugfix, game balance ... and a lot of serious problems are from D1 ... there is a reason why Eu4 and others old glories, they have no "community patch": because PDX solves problems there TIMELY. On the game they wanted to test, at the same time, too many "new ideas" throwing the old ones that worked of the old Hoi ... I think that, and I repeat ... we would have a peace system like that of hoi2 / Eu4 ... many mechanics that the developers were excited about at D1, now they hate them ... sorry, but if you like something, but THE DEVELOPERS HAVE ANSWER AND REPENT they put it ... maybe some reasoning should do it.
I repeat: Hoi4 is not my WW2 game. I like the alternative story: BUT ONLY if it is plausible! If I want to play the meme of fascist Finland that alone changes the fate of WW2 by making Mexico and the USA fascists (mod I made for a Twiccher for 1.9.3) the game AS A MOD! I DON'T want it in the base game an absurd thing! But as a mod it doesn't bother me ... One user already said that if you consider TOTALLY DIFFERENT things equally feasible, you have some problem with how you reason.
- 5
- 3
- 1