Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 3 9013 Bug Reports 5219 User Mods 384 Multiplayer 44 Suggestions 2277 Tech Support 528 After Action Reports (AARs)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #73 - Open Beta and Update 1.2 overview

16_9.jpg

​
Hello and welcome! Today we'll be covering several topics relating to Update 1.2:

  • Open 1.2 Beta
  • Feature Overview
  • Anticipated 1.2 Release Date

As mentioned in our last dev diary, 1.2 is a big update with some far-reaching changes, and we don't want to push it out before we feel it's ready for primetime. We're happy overall with the reception of Update 1.1, but those of you who were with us during its initial release will remember - perhaps fondly, perhaps not - how the Legitimacy mechanics seemed to change from day to day for a while there. While we finally managed to iron out most of the kinks in 1.1.2 (more on that later) this is the kind of scenario we'd like to avoid going forward. With a game as highly interconnected and complex as Victoria 3, the only way to do that is to give the patch enough time in the oven, letting our playtesters really give everything a solid rundown.

At the same time, Update 1.2 brings some substantial improvements in several areas that we know are important to you, and we don't want to keep those away from you longer than we absolutely have to. Disentangling specific improvements and bug fixes from the rest of the changes that have already been done to the branch is itself laborious and error-prone. Our assessment is that releasing those in hotfixes would be risky.

So how do we marry these two things together - giving you access to upcoming content as soon as possible, while ensuring high quality of the upcoming update? By launching our first Open Beta, of course! In this way you will have a chance to experience all the juicy parts of Update 1.2, but also share your feedback with us in advance, allowing us to improve what we are currently working on.

Our planned beta launch date is February 8th at 10:00 CET. At that point a new Steam beta branch 1.2-beta will become available to anyone who owns Victoria 3. A new forum post will be made with step-by-step instructions for how to enable it. Once you've started playing the beta, you can always switch back to the live branch in the same way. As always, your existing save games might not be fully compatible with this new version, and you should definitely not expect saves made in 1.2 to be backwards compatible with 1.1.2.

We will also launch a new beta section on our Victoria 3 Discord server where you can discuss the update with other players and report any bugs or balance issues you find. Our moderators will be active on this channel, and so will developers and QA team members as time permits. If you prefer not to use Discord you can also file bugs using our forum bug report tool, even for the beta version.

After the initial beta release, we plan on releasing two additional updates on the beta branch on a weekly basis, containing additional bug fixes, performance improvements, etc and also adjustments we've made according to your feedback. The exact release dates and times of these updates are to be confirmed, but we will keep you posted on the Discord channel.

To set expectations at the right level, playing the beta build will not be a buttery-smooth experience! Some aspects of the game will be greatly improved, but other things will be in a rougher state, and there will be bugs (if not, we'd just launch it without a beta phase!)

Also, some features will be in a less mature state at the beginning of beta than they will be at release. For example, Strategic Objectives will be limited to one per country during the beta, but the intent is to expand this to allow for designating multiple Strategic Objectives. This slimmed-down version is included in the beta to allow you to try it out and feedback on how it feels in general while we continue to work on the full implementation.

So do keep in mind that while you'll get a sneak peek at the latest features and will see many improvements, you should expect some speed bumps along the way. And when you do, we want to hear about it!

Below you can find a short list of some of the new features and improvements made in 1.2. As always, just because something is not on this list doesn't mean we're not aware of it, and may even have addressed it already! The full changelog will be published closer to the release date.

image1.jpg

​
New Features
  • Autonomous Investment system
  • Strategic Objectives for planning military campaigns
  • Customizable notification settings
  • In-game music player
  • Key rebinding

Improvements and bug fixes
  • Performance optimization
  • Improved AI handling of economy and military, including port management
  • Greater differences in economic systems
  • More realistic modeling of trade route profits and GDP
  • Worldwide Arable Land revision and migration balancing
  • Mega-parties limited by tweaks to party formation logic and ideology

Interface
  • Trade panel overhaul for easier route management
  • More clarity on Pop Needs, Convoys, Radicals and Loyalists
  • Visual upgrades to mapmodes and lenses, such as showing Infrastructure and employable Pops when expanding buildings
  • Outliner enhanced with pinnable market goods and characters
  • Reduced notification spam


We are going to cover most of these things in dev diaries leading up to the release of 1.2, so details on what exactly these entail may be sparse until then. However, all of these will be in the beta build when we release it (although to reiterate, perhaps not in their final form) so come February 8th you can explore them for yourself!

After the third and final beta release, but before the live release of Update 1.2, you can expect the beta build and the beta section on Discord to become unavailable, as we will be channeling all our resources into the release. We will keep you updated on the expected beta shutdown date on Discord as well, of course.

Our preliminary release date for Update 1.2, assuming all goes according to plan, is March 13th. For those of you who opt to continue playing 1.1.2 until then you can follow the new features in upcoming dev diaries. For the rest of you, I'll see you on Discord on Feb 8!

v3_discordbanner.jpg​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 144Like
  • 69Love
  • 12
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
agaabrieel said:
If you really want to avoid any conflict of economic interests between pops and the State (or 'der landgeist', whatever suits you), you should abstain from participating in international trade, that is, going for a closed economy, a glorious self-sufficient hermit kingdom.
Click to expand...
Or embargo your enemies. Or realize that once you go to war with your enemies they will be lacking weapons (and if all they were doing was relying on you now in shortage)
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Great!) looking forward to patch 1.2!
I am glad that the redevelopment of arable land in the world has finally passed.
Since we are talking about separate plantations for growing grapes. Can we expect sugar beet plantations to appear as well? For the same reason as stated above.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
lachek said:
Exactly! This way resources economies operate on the same playing field with manufacturing economies that also produce their own raw materials. The latter type is heavily favored (unfairly so) in 1.1.2.
Click to expand...

this should also be balanced to make the finished goods more expensive than raw materials. will there be rebalancing of prices as well?

something that for instance require glass (which in turn requre lead) should always be higher price, otherwise it wouldnt make sense to control all parts of the value chain.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
za3tarani said:
something that for instance require glass (which in turn requre lead) should always be higher price, otherwise it wouldnt make sense to control all parts of the value chain.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if its 2 buy orders for $5 each, or 5 buy orders for $2 each.
That is all base prices could be as well exactly same, if you scaled buy/sell orders in appropriate way.

Also what about pig iron tools and iron mines?
You use tools made of iron+wood to mine iron.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
lachek said:
Not for 1.2, but splitting out Vineyards into its own Plantation-type building is something we're looking into for the reasons you mention.
Click to expand...

rather than adding new type of plantations/building... why not change so the player can balance amount of output (with a ledger or something). so if you want a plantation to produce 100% and no wheat, it should be able.

this should also be added for every building that has 2 types of output good.

also, there should generally be less type of buildings, or atleast we should be able to group them somehow rather than have a long list of buildings to scroll down to. quantity of buildings (or anything really) doesnt equate quality, rather it is the gameplay that gives quality.

iron/coal/lead etc should be grouped, food sources (farms) like wheat, rice etc etc should be grouped, opium and other plantations should be grouped. consumer goods should be grouped etc etc
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Notme1 said:
It doesn't matter if its 2 buy orders for $5 each, or 5 buy orders for $2 each.
That is all base prices could be as well exactly same, if you scaled buy/sell orders in appropriate way.

Also what about pig iron tools and iron mines?
You use tools made of iron+wood to mine iron.
Click to expand...

what do you mean?

if
1 iron = 5$
1 tool = 5$

(assuming you only need 1 iron input to produce 1 tool)

this would mean whether you producting 1 tool or not it would not change your GDP in the new system. but if 1 tool = 8$, your GDP would be 3$ higher by producing 1 tool.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
za3tarani said:
what do you mean?

if
1 iron = 5$
1 tool = 5$

(assuming you only need 1 iron input to produce 1 tool)

this would mean whether you producting 1 tool or not it would not change your GDP in the new system. but if 1 tool = 8$, your GDP would be 3$ higher by producing 1 tool.
Click to expand...
Lets say Tools cost 10, Iron costs 20.
10 tools is needed to make 10 iron.
If I changed base price of iron while keeping total value then it would be: 10 tools is needed to make 20 iron.
Halved price, doubled quantity = exactly same value.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
TalTal said:
Great!) looking forward to patch 1.2!
I am glad that the redevelopment of arable land in the world has finally passed.
Since we are talking about separate plantations for growing grapes. Can we expect sugar beet plantations to appear as well? For the same reason as stated above.
Click to expand...
They already have sugar plantations, they won't add a second building to fill the same niche.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Notme1 said:
Lets say Tools cost 10, Iron costs 20.
10 tools is needed to make 10 iron.
If I changed base price of iron while keeping total value then it would be: 10 tools is needed to make 20 iron.
Halved price, doubled quantity = exactly same value.
Click to expand...

iron and tools were bad examples since you need iron (for pig iron) to make tools and tools to mine iron. a better example is lead to glass.

but, i might be to slow too understand, what do you disagree with me about prices in relation to gdp calculation? because (from your example) if your increase in production is offset by equivalent reduction in price (and keeping the total value the same) - then what is the point of gpd calculation?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
za3tarani said:
iron and tools were bad examples since you need iron (for pig iron) to make tools and tools to mine iron. a better example is lead to glass.

but, i might be to slow too understand, what do you disagree with me about prices in relation to gdp calculation? because (from your example) if your increase in production is offset by equivalent reduction in price (and keeping the total value the same) - then what is the point of gpd calculation?
Click to expand...
I meant that base price values are completely arbitrary.
Its just value of inputs and outputs that matter.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Notme1 said:
I meant that base price values are completely arbitrary.
Its just value of inputs and outputs that matter.
Click to expand...
yeh i partly agree. still prices only fluctuate from -75% to 75% of baseprice. so base price do matter, you cant have all goods have the same baseprice right? some goods are more valuable than others. my point is there should maybe be a rebalancing of base prices (if isnt already being done) so a more advanced industry is reflected on gdp
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
za3tarani said:
yeh i partly agree. still prices only fluctuate from -75% to 75% of baseprice. so base price do matter, you cant have all goods have the same baseprice right? some goods are more valuable than others. my point is there should maybe be a rebalancing of base prices (if isnt already being done) so a more advanced industry is reflected on gdp
Click to expand...
Prices themselves don't matter for calculation, currently GDP is sum of all output values.
It will be changed to sum of output values - sum of input values.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Notme1 said:
Prices themselves don't matter for calculation, currently GDP is sum of all output values.
It will be changed to sum of output values - sum of input values.
Click to expand...

how do they not matter? isnt output values = price x amount of goods?

old system vs new system (with price equilibrium): example

output lead (baseprice) = 10$
input lead (baseprice) = 10$
output glass (baseprice) = 10$

old gpd calculation, production lead + glass = 20$
old gpd calculation, production lead only = 10$
new gpd calculation, production lead + glass = 10$
new gpd calculation, production lead only = 10$

meaning if you produce glass or not, your GDP is the same in the new calculation - BUT again, if baseprice of glass was 15$ then in new gdp calculation then producing both lead and glass gives more gdp as opposed to just producing lead.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
For the love of god, can we just get actual control over our military?
 
  • 15
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Burma Jones said:
For the love of god, can we just get actual control over our military?
Click to expand...
Do you mean "can we just get tin soldiers/cardboard chits we can push around the map?" If so, then no, we can't.

If not, then you'll need to be clearer, because it seems like most people who say that mean "I want tin soldiers / cardboard chits to push around the map".
 
  • 10
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
za3tarani said:
how do they not matter? isnt output values = price x amount of goods?

old system vs new system (with price equilibrium): example

output lead (baseprice) = 10$
input lead (baseprice) = 10$
output glass (baseprice) = 10$

old gpd calculation, production lead + glass = 20$
old gpd calculation, production lead only = 10$
new gpd calculation, production lead + glass = 10$
new gpd calculation, production lead only = 10$

meaning if you produce glass or not, your GDP is the same in the new calculation - BUT again, if baseprice of glass was 15$ then in new gdp calculation then producing both lead and glass gives more gdp as opposed to just producing lead.
Click to expand...
If it costs the same amount for the output as the input why would your value increase?

Isn't the old way as follows (I am using the same assumption from your example that glass is made from lead without wood)
old lead only = L; old glass only = G; old both = L+G
new lead only = L; new glass only = G-L; new both = L + (G-L) = G

The new calculation shows the value added in production.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I’m really happy to see the autonomous investment system get introduced, but parties don’t make any sense.
Now if you are a Vanguardist, you have to be autocratic to support a command economy. I suppose that makes sense: the game wants to model the control demanded by a command economy. But what doesn’t make sense is that now your communist autocracy a) doesn’t have any political party ruling it, since autocracy precludes parties, and b) has empowered aristocrats, since autocracy provides buffers to that class. This doesn’t seem to accurately model Communist states at all: the Communist Parties, once ruling a command economy, dissolve themselves and empowers aristocrats. How does that make any sense at all? An easy solution is: make parties exist even in an autocracy, OR allow command economy to exist under a multiparty system. I know that “no parties under autocracy” just simulates a one-party state, but it’s not really fun or even accurate. Instead, why not this: an autocracy under a monarchy—an absolute monarchy—disallows parties, but an autocracy under a council or other republic simply fixes a certain party in government, so that the party cannot be changed (and instead, only interest groups that “fit in” to the governing party’s ideology can be part of government — eg, if the armed forces become vanguardist, they can join the ruling party). The party, by its ideological designation, limits what interest groups can be brought into government — and cannot be replaced until the relevant laws are changed. This way, you can have a Communist Autocracy while now winding up with the absurdity that it abolishes itself as a Party upon enacting it’s own proposed laws.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I vaguely recall a dev saying that yall were looking into modifying the colonization system to account for claims in 1.2, to help stop the sort of sillyness the current game has in places like Hokkaido and the Alberta/Montana area, etc. Should I expect to see that in the patch, or has that been pushed back?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back